Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurelanii Wars

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:23, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aurelanii Wars

Completely historically inacurate and totally unverifiable. Appears to be either original research or fan fiction. Zero Google hits, the title of the article itself appears to be completely made up. When ask to explain the article its author provided no sources nor explination and defended the artcile merely by challenging anyone to prove it was false.--Heathcliff 03:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unverifiable. Gazpacho 04:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, complete nonsense with not a shred of accuracy, even for the parts that are verifiable.Kuralyov 10:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete says it 'brought devastation to the Scots and the Picts' which I know to be complete garbage- the area that became Scotland was never successfully attacked during that era, either before or after the Romans left --Cynical 13:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax Stancel 19:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• I, the author, with a PHD in History have asked in my last comment for you to delete the article and yet you still rail on and on and on and on. Have any of you ever been to these places? Read first hand accounts on the pages they first were written? As i've said before, i saw a void in your little web page and tried to fill it. As i see now, this is not a place for knowledge, but for the same old Roman record keeping garbage that has stifled our knowledge of history for centuries. I suppose i could wait until the book is released and then cite it as "proof". Would that make you morons feel better? While i was in the second world war, there was no proof of genocide taking place. For years afterward, there was no proof that FDR suppressed this proof. Now there is no proof that the Jews have any historical claim to Israel. Have fun on your flat-empirical world, young fellows. I will soon be in Switzerland beginning my next book (of lies i suppose) on the Gallic War. Keep in mind that they pay me to research and write this stuff. How much do you earn to blindly dispute it? unsigned comment by 68.59.230.134

  Well, color me Nazi. I hope that isn't how you defended your dissertation. Gazpacho

• Delete. Nothing wrong with a new idea, but it doesn't belong here unless it's got proper support, which this doesn't. If it gains traction after publication, feel free to resubmit. Colin Kimbrell
• Delete due to lack of references and rudeness of the author. Gamaliel 20:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Somebody with a PhD should know to give references. Jitse Niesen 22:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No original research ought to say it all, but the anonymous & alleged author's comments above & below call for a something. If someone claims to have a Ph.D. in history can't remember that "A.D." properly goes before the date -- or check his spelling -- just how likely are we to trust the material in the article? -- llywrch 00:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• hi. I'm a long time user and a first time poster. Maybe i'm a little "green", but didn't the author request that his post be deleted? Do you guys just like to run things into the ground? I'm not trying to be snotty or rude but haven't you got better things to do than wave your intellectual cocks in the air? I was writing a paper on Britain during the dark ages and wound up side tracked by this stupid argument. True: a few things in the article aren't credible, but this is far from the first page i've seen here that ignore facts or create new theories. Also i have read many books on the subject of King Arthur that support the idea that Magnus was the father of Constantine III. I cannot cite the sources-don't have time-and don't really care. Whenever i look something up on Wikidpedia, i always double check it. Maybe you guys should do your own homework or take the advice of the old guy who wrote this entry and delete it without further discussion. Surely you all have something better to do. Or maybe not. unsigned comment by 68.59.230.134
  • Nice try, but did you notice the article history preserves the IP address of everyone who edits an article? Surely you have better things to do than attempt to fake messages to Wikipedia. Gamaliel 00:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

  I would guess that the article isn't gone yet because some of us are still hoping for you-know-what. Because we can be patient like that. Gazpacho 01:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• If this is fiction, it needs deleting. On the other hand, if it is verifiable original research (ie a proper radical redaction of established sources) then surely it deserves a place, albeit marked in some way as theory-not-absolute-fact. Otherwise, havign read the article, I am moved to take issue with Kuralyov's comment about "Not a shred of accuracy" since quite an amount of this is generally-accepted fact in England, and much of the rest accords with one among a number of radical re-readings of Dark Age history which relocate Arthur to Scotland and make the people in the northern part of ther island substantially more civilized than Caesar and his kith were willing to give credit for. Sorry for rant. --Simon Cursitor 06:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)--
  • Any attempts to relocate Arthur to the north of England/Scotland is merely an attempt at aggrandizement for the people of those areas. There is simply too much evidence putting him in the south, and not enough for him to be in the north. An Arthur-like person, or one of the bases for Arthur, maybe, but not the Arthur, if he existed.

And as for the Picts being more civilized than was thought: they did not have centralized government, standardized religion or language, or codified law; they did not scult, paint murals, write down their legends; they did not try to build lasting cities on purpose. I think the Romans had them beat.

"Radical re-readings" are interesting, but there is a reason they're called "radical."Kuralyov 10:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Hoax. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete Although I haven't the time to check every point here, as far as I can judge this is not a complete invention by the author, it appears to be an uncritical regurgitation of some accounts of the time of King Arthur written centuries after the event, mainly by Geoffrey of Monmouth, but regarded by historians as extremely unreliable. (I know this because among other things I read a couple of 20th century historical novels about Merlin by Mary Stewart loosely based on Geoffrey of Monmouth, and the recent film Merlin with Helena Bonham Carter as Morgan Le Fay also incorporates elements from Geoffrey.) However the article is not salvagable, so delete, and anything useful should be put in the articles on Geoffrey of Monmouth or some of the characters mentioned in the article. PatGallacher 11:32, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.