Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dore


 * 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. Also editorially redirecting to Dore.  Sandstein  15:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Dore

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete: The slim evidence of the events at Dore does not support a historical "Battle of Dore". The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that in 827 Egbert of Wessex led an army to Dore to receive the submission of Eanred of Northumbria. ("827... This year was the moon eclipsed, on mid-winter's mass-night; and King Egbert, in the course of the same year, conquered the Mercian kingdom, and all that is south of the Humber, being the eighth king who was sovereign of all the British dominions... This same Egbert led an army against the Northumbrians as far as Dore, where they met him, and offered terms of obedience and subjection, on the acceptance of which they returned home.") Even the local inscription which is pictured in the article says nothing about a battle. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The chronicler Roger of Wendover says "829 When Egbert, King of the West Saxons, had obtained all the southern kingdoms of England, he led a large army into Northumbria, and laid waste that province with a severe pillaging, and made King Eanred pay tribute" (quoted from Whitelock, English Historical Documents), p. 255.  Patrick Wormald refers to this on p. 129 of James Campbell's The Anglo-Saxons (1982), p. 139; he says this derives from earlier Northumbrian annals incorporated by Roger.  Yorke (Kings and Kingdoms, p. 96) also mentions Roger but does not seem to believe his account entirely, saying it was more likely that there was a "mutual recognition of sovereignty".  If Patrick Wormald believes a battle took place, that's a reliable source to base something on.  Whether there's enough material for a separate article is debatable. Mike Christie (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Indeed, Roger's account provides evidence of fighting led by Egbert in Northumbria, but it isn't evidence of a battle at a place called Dore, wherever that may have been. Moonraker2 (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Although the article could be somewhat fleshed out, the photo of the monument is notable and confirms that a historical battle costing lives took place there which is good enough for me --Jemesouviens32 (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: Er, no, the photo of the monument does not confirm that a historical battle took place. If you read what it says, there isn't a word about a battle or loss of lives. That is part of my point! There are no references for a battle at Dore, not even the monument there, which can be expected to err on the side of drama. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Further to keep above The stone says, quote "King Ecgbert of Wessex Led His Army To Dore In The Year A*D 829 Against King Eanred Of Northumbria By Whose Submission King Ecgbert Became First Overlord Of All England" So he moved an army, forced submission by force of arms and became overlord of all of England, how is that for a couple days/weeks work? As my comment above would like to see more about this specific military/political event being a history buff, but regardless, this is a keeper.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Moonraker2's point is not that the military campaign and submission did not happen, but that there is no evidence, even in the sources quoted, that a battle was fought at Dore.  I agree; the little that the sources say is covered under Egbert of Wessex, with nothing left that would be specific to this article. Mike Christie (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Mike am confused are you saying the monument is some kind of a hoax? Again here is the transcription, bold is mine The stone says, quote "King Ecgbert of Wessex Led His Army To Dore In The Year A*D 829 Against King Eanred Of Northumbria By Whose Submission King Ecgbert Became First Overlord Of All England" No evidence? Looks pretty convincing to me.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: We need to wonder why the writer uses those particular words. If there had ever been any evidence of a battle at Dore, then no doubt that monument would say so, because its whole purpose is to claim Dore has a historical significance. In fact, the monument rather evades the point. There are more-or-less reliable sources for fighting by Egbert in Northumbria, but this place called Dore isn't even in Northumbria. The Anglo Saxon Chronicle describes an event at Dore (which may or may not be the same Dore, these things can get very obscure, see Battle of Ethandun) which is not a battle but could be a treaty. You could compare the event with the Treaty of Wedmore, perhaps. Indeed, at this site I've found the following mention of a related article: "HOFFMAN, H.C., King Ecgbert and the Treaty of Dore (1969). Authoritative short study by a Dore-born historian, published as a follow-up to the unveiling of the Dore Stone." Moonraker2 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First, the stone is not a reliable source. Judging from the site Moonraker2 links to, it is only 40 years old; it probably wasn't written by historians who had the text peer reviewed.  Even if it were reliable it doesn't say there was a battle at Dore, only that Egbert led his army there.  The only primary sources I know of that mention this are the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Roger of Wendover; neither says there was a battle there.  The ASC says there was a submission at Dore, which at least one historian comments was probably a meeting of equals; Roger says the province was laid waste, but does not mention Dore -- in fact his wording does not imply a localized battle, but rather a pillaging campaign.  The reason for the deletion is not that nothing happened at Dore, but that there are no reliable sources that specifically describe a battle there.  What happened there deserves to be covered in Wikipedia -- and indeed it is covered: in Egbert of Wessex.  An article on "Submission to Egbert at Dore" would be a better shot, since there are secondary sources that describe that, but it would end up being merged to Egbert's article because it doesn't have enough content to stand alone. Mike Christie (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence whatsoever that there was a battle; and we can't have articles on events on the basis that they haven't been disproven. For all that the meeting was important it's difficult to see, what with the scarcity of sources, how an article on it could stand on its own.   Declan Clam (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A treaty at a site does not make the site a battleground. A battle would seem to require evidence of armed combat, and the sources do not support that. The sealing of the Magna Carta at Runnymede similarly does not support an article on the "Battle of Runnymede." (Where did the name of the old game "Battledore" come from? Surely not some legendary "Battle of Dore?" Edison (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply The OED doesn't suggest an origin for 'battledore', but the first instance it gives is "batyldoure, or wasshynge betylle", from c. 1440. Chambers's Etymological Dictionary says "perhaps Sp. batidor, a beater, a washing beetle". Moonraker2 (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of a battle and Egbert's domination is mentioned in his article. At the very least this article only adds confusion.-- SabreBD  (talk)  01:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is a better account at Dore (to which the battle article strangely doesn't even link), which quotes from Anglo Saxon Chronicle: "Egbert led an army against the Northumbrians as far as Dore, where they met him, and offered terms of obedience and subjection, on the acceptance of which they returned home". No battle. PamD (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Dore - There is no firm evidence for there being such a battle and the events are covered at Dore. Without verifiable sources this would violate our NPOV policy. Rje (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2009 (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.