Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/619 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  but allow restoration on request for the purpose of a merger to an appropriate article (which does not seem to exist yet). After discounting some particularly inane comments ("All hail my Anglo-American pov!", "The year in question clearly occurred", "like the potato famine", "Lets start a new guideline", etc.), consensus is that events in this country and era should be covered at the century level for now (or possibly at the decade level once WP:SS requires it), due to the apparent scarcity of verifiable exact dates or even verifiable events. As soon as someone creates an article such as 7th century in Ireland, we can undelete and merge the contents there.  Sandstein  22:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I overlooked that work on 7th century in Ireland has already begun, but it was a redirect at the time of the closure. Feel free to undelete 619 in Ireland and merge the contents to the century article, to the extent that consensus there allows.  Sandstein   22:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

619 in Ireland

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

The one listed event actually happened in 618 according to the article Fíngen mac Áedo Duib. Tim! (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Delete. So fix it.  I'd suggest moving the data to the correct article, but leave any speedy tags off just in case. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no need to "fix it" as it already exists at 618 in Ireland... Tim! (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then methinks we're done, and we can have a beer to celebrate. =) -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 18:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the subject matter, that would mean dancing with the blonde in the black dress, no doubt ;) Grutness...wha?  01:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, and most of these articles (the early ones anyway) need to go; a completely unmanageable editing nightmare. Perhaps best to be merged into a larger Irish chronology article. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep on condition that there'd be a combined article. Example would be 600's in Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have nothing in particular against 619 or Ireland. As far as the births [deaths] go, they're a listified category intersect of "is a member of a subcategory of Irish people" and "is a member of year X births [deaths]". Some of these deserve to be deleted, most merit merging into timelines. Deletion seems best in this particular case. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been bold and redirected this to a new article I started, 7th century in Ireland, which now contains 40 years of merged entries and links to the rest. Mangostar (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that has been reverted (as "vandalism", ugh). If the consensus is to merge, as I believe should be done, could the closer go ahead and put 7th century in Ireland where I had it and redirect the constituent pages, as I did? (Or let me know, so I can do this?) Thanks. Mangostar (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The year-in-Ireland series is a work-in-progress, and it's depressing to see that some editors are so keen to dismantle it just because it isn't yet complete. It's much easier to merge these articles than to unmerge them later, so this sort of mergeism has disruptive effect on building these chronologies. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Brownhairedgirl, these individual articles (well, the early ones), are historically unviable nightmares. I took some time to explain this a few months ago. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 01:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I cannot believe there is enough documented early history to have decently developed articles on individual years. (Perhaps Ireland editors could thoroughly investigate one representative year and prove me wrong?) For now, it makes sense to start with century articles, breaking them up into decade and year articles as they grow and need space. Mangostar (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.   — Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I can see the virtue of keeping a consistent format, but if there's no actual item, it does seem a little against common sense DGG (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, consistency was the argument for the by-year categories, at Deletion review/Log/2008 February 18. It wasn't accepted there. The argument that consistency and systematisation means treating 500 AD the same as 1000 AD, and that the same 1500 AD, or 2000 AD, seems to me to be fundamentally wrong-headed. As we move further into the past, there are fewer documented events which can be reported, and the precision with which they can be dated declines. Sometimes editing means starting over again on a blank sheet. This is probably one of those times. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge to century articles per Mangostar. --John (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge. Many of the early years are probably doomed to remain permastubs so combining them into a larger article makes sense. If enough documented content emerges then they could be split later. Valenciano (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there a technical fix to this? Lose the empty articles (bringing them back if the need arises) and devise some form of automatic navigation box that generates navigation links between "interesting" years (maybe through Dynamic Page List over a category) in a manner that's no-effort for the page authors and understandable for the readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can someone else please tell User:Sarah777 that AFD tags cannot be removed from articles until the discussion is over? She removed it again after I warned her the first time. Mangostar (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * delete per above. ThuranX (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. The information contained in the article is also contained in the correct year (618 in Ireland), and removing it would leave this as a content-free page, blank except for the template. Looking at the articles in Category:610s in Ireland, 615 and 614 redirect to History of Ireland, there is no article for 617, and the only article in the entire decade with more than a single entry is 618. I'd suggest merging all of the individual articles into a single article, using headers to separate each year.  Horologium  (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. With all due respect to BHG, this isn't viable and given the paucity of historic sources, is unlikely to be viable. No other country in the world currently has a "619 in..." article; even the article on the year as a whole worldwide is sketchy at best. If the material to flesh it out does become available, it can always be recreated; otherwise, this would be far more useful as a subsection of "Ireland in the 7th Century". —  iride  scent  02:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: No content, not much of anything. We can't keep placing pages as mere placeholders for someone to eventually fill in. Enough time has elapsed for content to be added and nothing was done. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  03:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, no future prejudice to recreation. Keeping with the format of "This stuff happened in this year" idea is pretty important, especially for people who navigate by page title.  On the other hand, having an article with no content in it doesn't really make sense.  However, future historical things may come to light, so I don't really see the point in harassing people who remake the article with actual content in the future.  Celarnor Talk to me  05:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to century or decade articles per Mangostar. We've been down this road before at Articles for deletion/1248 in Ireland. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral (changed from keep) I do think that back this far it is often difficult to give exact years... and maybe era or decade would be better if properly sourced, etc. It depends. But, I tend to think you need a reason to delete or change the title since year in country articles are otherwise inevitable. gren グレン 10:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into 600s in Ireland. Total nonsense to have every year in Ireland. Snappy56 (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge content to 600s in Ireland or a similar article. EJF (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sarah has a valid point that the date of this man's death is different from different sources. If the article is kept then other items for 619 can be easily added in the future.GDD1000 (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Added two more verified items to this article.GDD1000 (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ZOMG Keep: Who cares this year article is non-notable and against common sense? Lets start a new guideline that wikipedia can have article with zero content and keep this page.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This page is a part of a "work in progress", and should not be deleted. Deleting the page will ruin the format that Sarah777 has put much work into, and the finished result will be worth efforts thus far. Cherry rose (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC) (struck !vote of a banned user  Rockpock  e  t  19:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Note this user has been blocked as a sock puppet. Tim! (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge unless someone can find something else that happened that year. Make it into a redirect or something. 1  !=  2  16:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - like the potato famine, one of Ireland's natural disasters ;-) —TreasuryTag —t —c 16:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge per iridescent. Nakon  16:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge, present content would be better combined into 600s in Ireland, or similar. Leithp 16:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Umm, This guy's death Fíngen mac Áedo Duib, king of Munster, has no reference in this article. But it does have a reference in the article 618_in_Ireland that he died in 618... Soooo I think this article truly is blank as it only contains information contrary to our references. 1  !=  2  17:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect A century article makes more sense - if fact the above date controversy can be easily avoided. Agathoclea (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete with extreme prejudice. All hail my Anglo-American pov! &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 19:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; The year in question clearly occurred. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 19:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- unless WikiProject Ireland wants to take all of these articles under its wing -- setting standards for sources, chronology, reconciling conflicts of expert opinion. I've worked in this area, so I can state with some confidence: (1) The sources uses GDD1000 aren't reliable, I hate to say -- try some of the books written by Kathleen Hughes, Francis J. Byrne, Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, etc.; (2) the chronology of Irish history before AD 700 is very controversial -- even the experts disagree over the exact years events happened in; (3) unless kept under a careful eye by someone with a good knowledge of the topic, year pages prior to the 8th century will become a mare's nest of fringe theories & other cruft. -- llywrch (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reason to litter the project with articles that have shown zero promise of ever some day containing actual content. - Merzbow (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

But I'll say just one thing, as I know everyone's watching (although this might be better a matter for AN/I), I'll address you directly. Get off your anti-Sarah bandwagon. Look at this, despite me having nommed 1248 for deletion. . There are too many people round here who have an agenda. Drop it, stop it, please. Stop looking for reasons to nuke a very serious editor. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all articles in this series dealing with Antiquity, Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, per Iridescent & Llywrch. The dates of many (most?) of these events should be preceded by ca. anyway. — Use a X century in Ireland format instead. - Ev (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete echoing the above. There is no demonstrable need here. Eusebeus (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this article appears to be one article is a series of articles that make up a timeline of Ireland. I see no reason to delete an entire year from the history of this country because of the supposed lack of information on a page. Monobi (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment/question. I think it may be helpful to ask, to find out, what those behind this project see as its limits. Where do you plan to stop? At the year zero BC/AD (I'm not sure what it's called)? Or do you plan to go back earlier? I'm just asking... hell, I got my fingers burnt at Articles for deletion/1248 in Ireland so I'll say no more specifically about that.
 * For Christ's sake. Are you seriously suggesting that the nomination of this article for deletion is the result of an insiduous, dastardly "Anti-Sarah" plot? Give me a break. Even cowgirls get the blues, and even experienced editors may have a few contributions that aren't suitable for the encyclopedia. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, badger drink, I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. I haven't mentioned a plot, so I don't know where you get that idea. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, then. It's just rather dicey when one sees statements like "Get off your anti-Sarah bandwagon" and "Drop it, stop it, please. Stop looking for reasons to nuke a very serious editor", AfD being the barrel of... the barrel that it is and all. No hard feelings? --Badger Drink (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge any relevant information into a larger Irish history article. Unless a year is especially notable (it's not), it doesn't merit its own article.  Enigma  message 22:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to a 619 section of 7th century in Ireland (after reverting the redirect of that article to History of Ireland). Deletion is unnecessary: a "619 in Ireland" redirect is harmless as a plausible (even if unlikely) search term and an existing redirect would discourage future recreation unless and until the 619 section of the merged article grew to a significant size. DHowell (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the plan I most agree with. And I don't see where the "delete and merge" votes are coming from - that is impossible under the terms of the GFDL. EJF (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete is perfectly feasible in these cases, there's no creativity involved in snipping factoids out of other wikipedia articles or turning category intersects into articles and thus nothing to be copyrighted. If you disagree, where's the attribution in this article then? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge - The number of known events of any year at such a remote era will inevitably be very small. There is thus no case for one article per year.  An article on the whole decade - 610s in Ireland might possibly be.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - People above have suggested a merger to 600s in Ireland, but that should refer to the decade 600-609, not the century 600-699 or 601-700. The use of "600s" for a century is ambiguous - "7th century" is always to be preferred.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to a 619 section of 7th century in Ireland, as per DHowell. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as per DHowell. This was a serious effort by somebody to add useful information to Wikipedia in an organized way. It's not the kind of vandalism or slander or self-promotion that needs to be dealt with by "Delete", which IIUC removes not only the article but also its history, talk page, etc. betsythedevine (talk) 05:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There is sufficient information for article to stand alone. Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:49, 26 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.