Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earldom of Ness


 * 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. henrik • talk  20:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Earldom of Ness

 * – ( View AfD View log )

See the article on Clan MacNicol. David Sellar is an authortiy on Hebridean genealogy who has written the history on the clan. In his book Sellar notes that there is a John MacNicol on record in the early 14th century, and suggests that this MacNicol may be the 'John' recorded in a 15th century pedigree of the clan. If Sellar is correct, then this man is the earliest member of the clan on record. There is no 12th century MacNicol. David II was a late 14th century king (not a 12th century one). If any member of the clan ever recieved a royal charter Sellar would surely have noted it. He doesn't. He notes that Torquil MacLeod recieved a charter from David II for the lands of Assynt - lands which later tradition associated with the MacNicols. That's pretty much it.

If there was an 'Earldom of Ness' associated with the family then Sellar would have noted it. The two websites just aren't good enough to support an article on a supposed medieval lordship. There are lots of good books on medieval Scotland out in the wild. I don't think a MacNicol 'Earldom of Ness' is going to appear in any of them. This article should be deleted since no reliable source supports it.Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Perhaps Seller was wrong. And if it wasn't owned by Clan MacNicol, which it was, as Skene, in his Table of Descent of Highland Clans stated that Clan MacNicol came from the Earldom of Ness, then fix the article.  Also, the 14th century MacNicol isn't the first man ever to exist.  He had ancestors.  The MacNicols go back to the Kairinoi that Ptolemy refered to (also known as the Dairinoi, which is the proper spelling). 184.246.51.244 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC).  — 184.246.51.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It's Victorian fantasy to take a surname, first recorded in the 14th century, and equate it with a name on a map composed by Ptolemy in the 2nd century. Skene's book was first published in 1836, scholarship has improved vastly in the last 170 years. Provide a reference to where a modern scholar has even mentioned an 'Earldom of Ness', let alone associated the MacNicols with it. Give a reference to where one has noted a medieval charter granted to a MacNicol and cites a reliable source for it.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Automated comment This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 21.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  15:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed one of the article's sources because it mirrors WP and is thus unreliable.  Claret Ash  23:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, but not because a more reliable source doesn't back this up. If established authorities disagree on something, then Wikipedia should cover both points of view. But the problem here is that the evidence of this Earldom of Ness doesn't even qualify as verifiable. All we have is one person's incidental mention of a district of Ness, which may have been lifted from a 1933 document but is nowhere near reliable. Found another incidental mention in Gbooks but still not enough to reliably claim such as earldom existed without substantial WP:SYNTH. Should someone did up better coverage (preferably some decent coverage in secondary sources) we can revisit this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is reliable. No reason to toss it.  A lot of these comments are quite stupid.  It isn't fantasy to trace an ancestry back to its presdecessors.   You should really rethink things before you post them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.107.127.212 (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2012 — 173.107.127.212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Agreed.  Also, there was a region called Ness.  This article fits the description. 108.132.129.54 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC).  — 108.132.129.54 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The problem is that claiming you have researched some ancestry, however reliable, isn't what Wikipedia's for. That is original research which is one of the things expressly disallowed in Wikipedia. Is this Earldom verified in independent, reliable sources? If so, show what they are and there's a good chance the article will stay in some form. (It doesn't have to be online, printed media is also acceptable.) If not, unless other wikipedians are more lenient than me and consider the couple of incidental mentions in books sufficient (I don't), it will probably be deleted. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as a minor fringe theory that conflicts with what is currently known from reliable sources. I note, too, that the sole source currently provided itself is unsourced, raising questions of that sources reliability.  Claret Ash  23:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Here are sources that refer to "The district known as Ness":
 * www.electricscotland.com/webclans/m/macnico2.html
 * jamespayne2.8m.com/nichol.html
 * www.antonymaitland.com/nicolfam.htm
 * isaacsite.com/archives/nicholsons-leap-click-for-full-sized-pictures/
 * www.archaeologyhebrides.com/locations/view/45
 * familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/p/i/o/Jorge-R-Pion/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-0176.html

So look into these sites. These are all sources that link Clan MacNicol to the land of Ness, which is in Northwest Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.247.30.200 (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — 184.247.30.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. With these sources now known, this article should be kept.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.132.41.77 (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)  — 108.132.41.77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment Regarding the above "sources":
 * The first does not support the primary assertion that the region of Ness was an earldom.
 * The assertions of the second have already been discredited by User:Brianann above (i.e. "Victorian fantasy")
 * Ditto for the third source
 * As for the fourth source, the pictures are lovely and I'd like to visit the place someday. However, far from supporting the article, this source actually conflicts with it. To quote: "The site is... equally linked to the Clan Morrison, and is within the ancient boundaries of Ness, the clan's traditional home." In other words, nowhere does it describe the region as being the home of the MacNicols, instead attributing it to the Morrisons. Nonetheless, the source is unreliable because it blatantly copies text from Wikipedia.
 * The fifth source is almost a word-for-word copy of the fourth. Then again, considering that the fourth source has been shown to copy text without adequate attribution, it's more likely that the isaacsite source copied this one.
 * As for the sixth source: Seriously!? Some random person's account on a genealogy website. That alone makes it an unreliable source. But add to that the blatant copying from the elctricscotland source. There's no way this can be acceptable.
 * So, all in all, it seems Briannan's request for reliable references that support the article's assertions still stands.  Claret Ash  07:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep . These are your opinions.   Also, if it's not an Earldom, Change it to district.  This land did exist, and in light of the sources, this debate should end here with the article remaining.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.132.41.77 (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please only !vote once. Also, please be aware that if you are the same person anonymously posting from 4 different IP addresses in order to look like four different people, that is not allowed and gets taken very seriously if you are caught. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep the tiles given to nobility in the earlier part of Scottish history were, as i understand it, rather fluid. I think probably the safest non-commital title would be "Lordship of Ness", but except fo deciding on the title, I see no real probelm with the article.  DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not one reliable source even mentions a medieval lordship of Ness. You can't tip-toe around that.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2012 (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.