Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenin Llwyd


 * 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. The burden of proof to verify is on the editor adding material, not those challenging it, in response to at least one misinformed comment during this AfD.  Daniel Bryant  08:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Brenin Llwyd

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Completely bogus article seemingly arising out of a misunderstanding to do with a character in a Susan Cooper book, outside which there is no such myth Flapdragon 01:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC) To clarify, this started as an article about a Susan Cooper book called The Grey King, the Welsh name of which eponymous character is Y Brenin Llwyd, presumably her invention, probably inspired by the Scottish "Grey Man of Ben Macdhui". However, the title of the book is The Grey King not "Brenin Llwyd" and it has a separate article. Then one editor, probably through a simple misunderstanding, changed it into an article about a mythological creature(? paranormal being? cryptozoological phenomenon?) -- but there is no such concept outside that work of fantasy fiction and a request for sources posted a year ago has produced nothing. Needs zapped before the confusion spreads any further. Flapdragon 01:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge with that mythological Arctic monster article of BJAODN fame. :) YechielMan 15:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep but zap Bigfoot. A search of Google Books for "Brenin Llwyd" shows the legend long pre-dates The Grey King: e.g. Folk-lore and folk-stories of Wales, Marie Trevelyan, 1909 (online here). But as Flapdragon says, the error here has been the unsupported accretion of the idea that it's some kind of Yeti clone. Tearlach 16:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with the Susan Cooper article or Delete. Marie Trevelyan's book is not generally accepted as reliable. See my notes and references on the article page and the Talk Page. It does not "long pre-date" the work of fiction, although obviously a source for the author. I can only repeat here what i've noted at Brenin Llwyd: there are no early references that I'm aware of and it does not feature in the standard comprehensive academic studies of Welsh folkore. The description of the character has certain affinities with the well-known mythological figure Gwyn ap Nudd and would perhaps serve as a footnote to that article (minus the novel!). Enaidmawr 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd like to see some serious justification for that statement: cited source(s) that she's considered unreliable, and why he should be considered more reliable. Otherwise your opinion on Trevelyan's reliability is just original research. Tearlach 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: :I'm not saying that Trevelyan's work is worthless, simply that she was not a trained scholar and is very uncritical in her use of sources, or indeed lack of them. She flows from one thing to another with great enthusiasm but little or no discipline. Any modern scholar would be of the same opinion after reading a page or two of her work. Now, as regards her "Brenin Llwyd", I've just spent half an hour chasing up the references on Google. (Not all of them, there's about 3000). All the ones I've looked up are from here (wiki mirror sites etc), from the text of Trevelyan's book on the site you quoted, from Susan Cooper's work or related material, and two or three occult/Celtic Mysticism sites full of laughable errors and wild claims and all obviously basing their references to the desciption of the B.Ll. in Trevelyan's book and/or Cooper's novel. You'll have to take my word for it that I've checked every possible source in my library - several dozen books on Welsh folklore - without finding a SINGLE reference to the supposed Brenin. So we have a single unverifiable source for this. I'm not making this a do-or-die issue, but I feel the onus should be just as much on yourself (nothing personal!) to prove that Trevelyan's reference is valid, as none of the standard modern books on the subject refer to the Brenin Llwyd. Enaidmawr 00:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and Merge - not a decent source, and a native Welsh speaker, resident in the area says on the talk page "never heard of him." Merge into either Susan Cooper or the article on the Scottish original Big grey man. Rgds, --Trident13 23:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR again. It's irrelevant what someone says here from personal experience. The decision has to be based on what published sources say. Provide some that say the Marie Trevelyan book is unreliable. If none exist, there is no justification for discounting it as a source. Tearlach 00:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Let's not be too dogmatic about this. It's one solitary source amid a sea of possible sources that don't mention this Brenin Llwyd thing even to dismiss it. Just because some vague, unattributed story gets into print, once, doesn't prove a whole lot. You have to bear in mind the fact that (and I think this would be fairly uncontroversial) 19th-century accounts of Welsh traditions and history, especially by amateur antiquarians, are notoriously anecdotal and unreliable. Some flavour of that can no doubt be gained from this review by Juliette Wood, University of Wales, Cardiff in 2000:
 * Those who have learned so much from Anne Ross's seminal work on Celtic culture will be extremely disappointed by her current book on the druids [The Druids. Stroud: Tempus, 1999] ... The work conducted by the School of Scottish Studies in the past decades is simply passed over as if it did not exist. Examples from Welsh folklore are no better, with Marie Trevelyan's description of Beltain (recently examined by Ronald Hutton) presented as accurate.
 * The online version of Trevelyan's text show it to be a a handful of vague anecdotes and rumours from assorted informants: "Writing in the spirit, though not in the letter of the Welsh language, I have endeavoured to give glimpses, or faithful sketches, rather than studies of life and character in Wales" as the author herself puts it. The Brenin Llwyd account reeks of literary whimsy -- "Monarch of the MIsts" indeed! Who called it that then? Flapdragon 01:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, though the initial mention is of "Snowdon and the ranges of it, Cader Idris, Plinlimmon", which is the focus of this article, the detailed(ish) anecdote presented by Trevelyan ("An old woman said that...") is of her home county, Glamorgan. Flapdragon 01:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's not be too dogmatic about this
 * Which is dogmatic? Expecting that inclusion/deletion be based on the usual Wikipedia criteria; or arguing for deletion on grounds of personal litcrit and unsourced opinion that a book is unreliable? The latter is OR as in "It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position".
 * Bear in mind that WP:NOR also requires that any sources cited must be in relation to the topic of the article (their bold): if her account of Beltain is crap, it's not evidence that the Brenin Llwyd bits are too. Tearlach 02:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. A new wikipedia article appears: "Little green men from the planet Zog are said to inhabit caves in the hills of England, from the Sussex Downs to the Peak and Lake Districts." (reference: Author X, Book Y). It's in print, it's a source, and no other printed reference can be found to refute it: therefore it should be left in place until or unless someone can find a printed source that specifically proves otherwise by refuting that printed source, any other argument being just 'OR'. Valid argument? I've reread the relevant parts of Trevelyan's report and totally agree with what User:Flapdragon says. The whole thing comes from something one old lady in Glamorgan is supposed to have said. Then, quite typically, Trevelyan wildy and blithely expands it to make it seem that the tradition was prevalent throughout Wales, from south to north. And yet NOBODY else mentions it! For the time being i'm amending the article accordingly and am again strongly suggesting deleting the article and noting Trevelyan's story as a footnote in the article on Cooper's novel, where it belongs. If we leave articles like this in place the wikipedia will become a joke. Enaidmawr 21:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a misrepresentation. If you try a Google Books search on "Marie Trevelyan" Wales, you find that not only does her book exist; it is also widely cited. That's all we can go on. Not your personal opinion of the credibility of the work, or of other editors saying the equivalent of "I'm a Llap Goch master and and can divine the credibility of sources". Tearlach 22:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And that's being highly selective. Of course her book will be cited. As I said above, it is not entirely without value and it's a well-known work of its period. However we are talking about this "Brenin Llwyd". I asked you "to prove that Trevelyan's reference is valid as none of the standard modern books on the subject (i.e. Welsh folkore) refer to the Brenin Llwyd." You have not done so. Why didn't you try a Google Books search for "Marie Trevelyan"+"Brenin Llwyd" ? You will find just TWO results, one to the text of Trevelyan's book itself and a passing mention in a book about the poetry of Vernon Watkins (by an author who is not a folklorist and in a context which is irrelevant here). You even reverted my edit which made it clear that the supposed tradition comes from a sole informant in a single location. No scholar would accept Trevelyan's application of that information - whatever its worth, validity or interest - to apply to the whole of Wales. That is not 'POV' or 'OR' but academic fact. And I speak from professional experience in the academic field. I am genuinely concerned that the Wikipedia's reputation suffers because of woolly articles such as this; it is little wonder that many academics look askance at the wikipedia and don't contribute to it. Anybody with an academic interest in folklore, Welsh or otherwise, who sees this Brenin Llwyd article would probably smile to themselves and move on. And if he/she naively sought to correct the article and met with this sort of response I suspect they would give up on the wikipedia as a potentially great educational resource and confine their activities to the saner world of academia, as indeed I feel tempted to do myself. Enaidmawr 01:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I speak from professional experience in the academic field.
 * And that says it all. You're still trying to play the personal authority card instead of grasping how Wikipedia works. Because of the open editorship system here, no-one's claim of personal authority can be trusted (you may be aware of the Essjay controversy). That's why credibility of statements has to be assessed purely on the basis of the existence of published sources. If academics in folklore view Trevelyan as unreliable a) overall b) on this specific point, provide published sources saying exactly that. Tearlach 01:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I will not repeat my argument but I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia guidelines on Reliable sources. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. // Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim[:]
 * (1.) Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known. // (4.) Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. // Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources."
 * Please note the last sentence in particular. That is the gist of my objection and also reflects standard academic procedure, as well as common sense. Trevelyan extrapolates a single localised tradition recorded by her alone to cover the whole of Wales, from north to south, including Snowdonia, without providing a shred of evidence to support that view. I have nothing personal against her or yourself and have no vested interest in this "article", I'm simply interested in the truth and Wikipedia's reputation. I have nothing further to say on this matter. Enaidmawr 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Tearlach's various comments here. If anyone wishes to dispute the veracity of the article or its sources; let them cite contrary sources. Andy Mabbett 23:25, 1 May 2007 (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.