Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/260 in Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 3rd century in Ireland provided that article is kept, otherwise delete.  Sandstein  22:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 260 in Ireland

260 in Ireland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Cormac mac Airt, being as he was not a historical figure, did not die in 260 AD, so this article has no actual content because no events in Ireland can be dated to 260, or to the 260s, or even to the 3rd century AD with much confidence. Cormac as mythical figure without historical basis: Byrne, Irish Kings and High Kings, 52-3; Ó Cróinín, Early Medieval Ireland, 76; Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, 580-3. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: for context, see List of years in Ireland. - Ev (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Previously bundled articles removed. See history for details.

  • Comment I'm not sure it makes sense to bundle all these together. As someone who knows essentially nothing about Irish history, I have no ability to evaluate which of these events have an actual historical basis. Perhaps they should be evaluated individually (or at least an explanation for each should be given here). Mangostar (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - would a merge to something like Myths and legends of early Ireland (or "Timeline" of such) be workable? Seems like the content might be encyclopedic, just not in a literal-real-world-historic sense, and certainly not at the present, misleading title(s). --Badger Drink (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete From the other RfD I'm not confident that the community has as yet grasped the full extent of the problem of these articles. We have almost no secure date for anything in Ireland before the 7th century, when the first sources were being written, and very few before the 9th century when more of sources got written (in fact dates before the Norman period are not necessarily reliable either). 3rd century ... it's a total laugh! Each date, if even acknowledged (like Patrick's two dates, most of the rest being ignored as pseudo-history) they are surrounded by so much complex literature and require such a detailed knowledge of source criticism and historiography, it is unreasonable to have these articles at all let alone expect wikipedia editors to sustain so many articles to any semi-decent historical standard. Neither of the two editors who want these articles have this knowledge, so I'm not sure where all this management is supposed to come from. You keep these you ARE GUARANTEEING nonsense being given a wiki rubber stamp. They will only mislead those readers with little knowledge and fill the hearts of those who do have knowledge with contempt for our project. If you want that, vote keep, cause that's all such a vote could achieve. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • normal people would say strong deelte because it provides no content, no valdi sources.--Freewayguy T C 01:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. MilkFloat 07:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to 3rd century in Ireland. Tim! (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This clearly is a different case to 619 in Ireland. I'm afraid delete is the only option. Allowing myths and legends to masquerade as fact is just not on for an encyclopædia. EJF (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 3rd century in Ireland. It is impossible to know how reliable how reliable the traditions about 3rd century Ireland are, and precise chronology is almost certainly a matter of opinion. It is legitimate for the 3rd century article to exist since the events recorded probably happened (if the events did in fact happen at all) in about that period. The presetn article merely duplicates its content, while suggesting a spurious provision as to its date. These comments probably aslo apply to 254 in Ireland (also nominated as AFD) and any other articles on specific years (or even decades). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It would be unwise to suppose that because these articles have what appear to be references that (a) the "events" are actually mentioned in them - nothing in 3rd century in Ireland was included in the RIA Chronology volume - or that the reference means what it seems to - the CELT references actually mean "according to the Annals of the Four Masters". There are no 3rd century events in Ireland in the RIA Chronology. Not a single one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This seems to be a question of how much credence can be placed on Annals of the Four Masters. These are certainly regarded as a useable source for later centuries, even though they (apparently) only exist in a 17th century compilation. Accounts of this period must be regarded as legendary or semi-legendary, but if they are in the annals, I see no reason why they should not be in WP, but in a general article on a period (such as a century), not one on a specific year. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
but if they are in the annals, I see no reason why they should not be in WP, but in a general article on a period (such as a century), not one on a specific year.
Being fictional is a reason not to put them on wiki. Wouldn't expect in England in 467 "Death of Uter Pendragon, king of England, to whom succeeded his son, King Arthur, who instituted the Round Table" just because it was in the Annals. ;) Taking stuff directly from annals is a violation of WP:OR and is too complicated for the non-specialist to handle properly without a great deal of investment of time and resources. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I frequently see articles that are citing original published sources. I assume your quotation is from Geoffrey of Monmouth, who is not regarded as a reliable source (or from some later romance). I see no reason why material from annals should not appear, but it should be accompanied by appropriate commentary as to its reliability, for which I have no doubt that an appropriate academic source can be found, such as an editor's introduction to an edition of the annals. The present article lack that, and so cannot remain in its presetn form, but I stand by my view that the proper course is to merge it into a rather broader article on a longer period, where such commentary can be provided once. If annual articles are kept, it will be necessary to have such qualifications in each of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: The general feature here is that the year article has only one incident, this does not merit a separate article. The incident can be merged into the decade/century articles. But the event described in this article is mythical, obviously should not be depicted as historical fact in a year article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to preserve history and make clear on the century that it's a mythological "fact" --Enric Naval (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.