Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/254 in Ireland


 * 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   delete. I'll redirect to 3rd century in Ireland - however, I'm inexperienced at this sort of closure, so I'm not entirely sure what to do. I'll delete the article and recreate as a redirect - if this is incorrect, please tell me and/or correct it yourself. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 01:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

254 in Ireland

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Cormac mac Airt is a legendary/mythical/fictional personage. He can no more be born or die or abdicate in particular year than the return of Odysseus to Ithaca, the shooting of Bobby Ewing or the birth of Lisa Simpson can have a real-world date attached to them.

There's an article could be written on these pseudo-historical chronologies, but the chronology itself is studied only for what it says about the real people who created it and their world. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Also including, sole content Cormac's supposed abdication, for the same reasons.


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

*Confused – OK, I am a little confused here. What article are you proposing for deletion exactly, 254 in Ireland or Cormac mac Airt? On the first, I say merge to Cormac mac Airt. On the second, I say Keep. ShoesssS Talk 23:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.   —Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am pointing out that there is no here here. There are no events in Ireland in 260 listed here. I could have just removed the non-event to produce a non-article and then deleted it myself under CSD A1, but that strikes me as being rather evil. If the view is that non-events involving non-people make non-articles, I'll empty and then tag such articles for speedy deletion under A1. I have no evil designs towards the Cormac mac Airt article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete both per above. Tavix (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's quite a valid topic for an article, but I understand and agree that we shouldn't list this event as having happened in this year. Therefore, since we don't know of anything that really belongs on this page, it should be deleted until and unless someone finds something that we know happened in Ireland in 254: keeping it until such a thing is found would be crystalballish.  Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sorry, just being dumb tonight, I see your point. Agree – delete. ShoesssS Talk 00:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all, it's me that was as clear as mud. Apologies to all, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thisw is neologism.-- Free way guy T C 01:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A clear WP:NEO Artene50 (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What neologism? I don't understand. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to 3rd century in Ireland. Tim! (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no way of verifying the date or even the existence of the king. Myths and legends should not be presented as factual material in an encyclopædia. EJF (talk) 11:10, 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 260 in Ireland (also nominated as AFD) and any other articles on specific years (or even decades).   In response to EJF, I say that legendary kings are potentially a proper subject for articles.  I have no doubt that there is good source material on which the personal article is based, the question is however how much academic credence should be given to it.  This is a matter for academics, and not something appropriate to decide in WP.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, a matter for academics like T. F. O'Rahilly (Cormac mac Airt is legendary), Thomas Charles-Edwards (legendary), James MacKillop (legendary), Frank Byrne (Cormac's dates are not in Byrne's RIA Chronology, but although Cormac's historicity is not the modern view Byrne doesn't want to abandon all hope), Ó Cróinín (mythological), ... I look forward to Robin Hood appearing in century-in-England articles. He's legendary too, but he has a floruit. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To reply to your point Peter, I have no problem with legendary kings having a Wikipedia article. I do think it is inappropriate to present his supposed abdication-date as a factual event, in a chronological series of articles. EJF (talk) 10:26, 26 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) 19:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sort Information should be made into decades or centuries, like the system for the current decades (ex. 1960s, 1970s)-- LAA Fan  13:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to 3rd century in Ireland. Since the information is already there (and we're just talking about single sentences anyway), there's nothing to merge.  I think it's rather par for the course for the line between 3rd century reality and legend to be blurred, so I'm neutral leaning towards keep regarding the information in general. -- Kéiryn (talk) 00:17, 28 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.