Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of the Ninth Legion


 * 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 Keep. Although most editors recommend some changes to this article, those recommendations ranging from merge to trim to complete rewrite, these actiona all result in a default keep result. Such actions are within the jurisdiction of editorial discretion, and do not require AfD or any other formal process in order to be actioned. No one solution had a clear consensus here. What was clear, was that there was no consensus for deletion. JERRY talk contribs 00:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Massacre of the Ninth Legion

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Ancient history article based on an imaginative reconstruction on a TV show but not supported by ancient sources; not notable enough or enough material for its own article; adequately covered in other articles; prod tag deleted by article's originator (who also deleted the discussion page) Nicknack009 (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * TV program presented by historians, so they know what they are talking about from the shreds of evidence they got from historians of the period. such a significant subject not adequately covered or recorded anywhere on Wikipedia. I believe it should stay. (Trip Johnson (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC))


 * Weak Keep. There ought to be historical sources to back up the material presented such a show. Just a matter of finding them. Pastordavid (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources for the Boudican revolt are well-known. There is only one source for this incident, Tacitus, Annals 14.32. All Tacitus says is that the 9th legion, led by Quintus Petillius Cerialis, attempted to relieve Camulodunum but were defeated by the Britons and almost wiped out, with only Cerialis and some cavalry escaping to a fortified camp. That's the sum total of it. Archaeology has nothing to add about this particular defeat. Everything else in the article is either from a speculative dramatic reconstruction taken from a particular TV program (presented by Peter and Dan Snow, who are TV presenters, not historians), or padding. Take all that out and we're left with a one line article with no prospect of expansion. The incident is perfectly adequately covered in Boudica, Quintus Petillius Cerialis, Legio VIIII Hispana etc. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Legio VIIII Hispana. I agree with Nicknack009 - we should not mix serious history based on sources with TV dramatic reconstructions. JohnCD (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into a Boudiccan rebellion article. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Boudica, or take this advice and rewrite this as an article on the mythology surrounding the event, which seems notable enough, inspiring a major historical novel and at one point three potential film treatments. --Dhartung | Talk 04:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The only source for this article is an episode of Battlefield Britain.  According to the Wikipedia article for that show, "The series became known for historical inaccuracy [and] the presentation as fact of wild speculation unsupported by historical evidence."  Unfortunately, that statement was not sourced, but it is an indication that there is serious doubt that the television series is a reliable source.  I would not oppose the recreation of this article from scratch using reliable sources.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I also would not object to changing the article to being about the mythology of the event per Dhartung provided that the article clearly indicates that it is about the mythology, not about what really happened and if the article uses more sources than just one episode of one television program.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * rewrite to separate the history from the show. There is probably a good deal of commentary on the Tacitus to be found. Historians usually do discuss the inter-relationship of the people & events, and that can be cited. But in the meantime, do as FreeKresge suggests, and discuss it as the show. In fact, if the series was criticised, there should be real-world references for the specific inaccuracies. DGG (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * delete or redirect. The episode isn't worth its own article, and the historical events are covered in other articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but trim anything which is speculation from the TV show. This battle looks important enough in isolation and there's one reliable source which states that it happened. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Nick Dowling. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 07:58, 1 February 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.