Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/80 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 No consensus - Recommend to follow the advice by Peterkingiron to merge these two articles into one in which a full century is presented, alongside other material that may provide context about their validity. sources, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

80 in Ireland

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

The source(s) for these article are primary sources, specifically Irish annals, but there are not accepted as having much if any reliability before the 5th century at the very earliest, and more plausibly the 6th: "Irish annalistic records at such an early period are not to be taken as historically authentic" [Fergus Kelly, "Cormac mac Airt", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, here]. Any discussion of a "historical" Túathal Techtmar, always assuming that to be a good idea, belongs in a Roman Ireland article fenced around with if, and but, and perhaps, and with archaeologically imprecise dates, if any.

Also included, since it's in the same era and equally implausibly dated and involves Túathal Techtmar:



There is little point in merging this material as it will be equally unverifiable if merged. The most recent source on Irish chronology is Volume VIII of the Royal Irish Academy's New History of Ireland and this contains neither of these items. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.   —Angus McLellan  (Talk) 20:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - "Roman Ireland"????? —  iride  scent  20:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, really, Roman Ireland. I've read Martino's book. It's not as cranky as you might think, although there's an awful lot of it is really stretching. More conventionally there's a fair bit on Roman contacts in Mytum's Early Christian Ireland and a page or two in Raftery's Pagan Celtic Iron Age. Roman Ireland would need ifs, and buts, and maybes, and very careful attribution, but it would be much easier to write than 3rd century in Ireland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For the article, as with other early periods in Ireland, Merge inot articles on entire centuries, which MUST be accompanied by an explanation of how much credence is to be placed on them, since historians regard the events and figures described as legendary (not historical). The legendary events are potentially appropriate for inclusion in WP, provided it is made clear what they are.  As to Roman Ireland, I believe there is evidence of one Roman fort, and this and Irish contracts with Britain might make an article on Roman Ireland.  However the archeological periods in Ireland are Iron Age and Early Christian, rather than (England's) Roman, Dark Age, and Saxon.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Unless every other country/region in the world has Year in articles then Ireland should be no exception. P.S. Roman Ireland is a non starter, don't even attempt to go there, it'll be AfD'd so fast....! Snappy56 (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to an appropriate article about the period in Irish history. FWIW, the Irish annals are certainly subject to some commentary by historians.  In one sense, their lack of corroboration by other sources makes them in some sense infallible.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per issues raised in the nom + no demonstrable need for this as a standalone. Eusebeus (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per all the above delete arguments, I do not want to repeat the arguments.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - "history" did not have the same definition in c. 500 A.D. as it does today. I support keeping IF we can get a cite from one of the annals. Otherwise, merge and redirect to Ireland in the 80s. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per significance in real world and just note in article concerns over sourc reliability. We could say, some sources claim X about 80 in Ireland, but these claims are disputed.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:29, 6 June 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.