Testwiki:Articles for deletion/Rhongomiant

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 Merge into King_Arthur#Arthur's_weapons. Non-admin close on a clear consensus. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 23:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Rhongomiant

Template:La (delete) – (View log)

Badly written stub that could be incorporated into King Arthur? Susan Gleason (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Good question. Can anyone find a source for this thing? As in, which Arthurian soruce-text this is from? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Yeah, the submitter's other contributions appear to be fictional/vandalistic. Susan Gleason (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Oy, no wonder I didn't recognize this -- it's from the deep Celtic strata of Arthuriana. One of the Welsh triads mentions his three weapons: "Rhongomiant his spear, Caledfwlch a sword, and Carnwennan his dagger." Looks like it was also mentioned in the Mabinogion, but didn't make it into the French retellings (where the Big Guy got a different sword as well). So, not a vandalous hoax. But is it notable? I'm dubious, but if anyone can find arguments/evidence otherwise, I'll listen. —Quasirandom (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge - as it stands, it fails WP:OR. However, I feel that the subject itself is notable (however not on its own). Merge with King Arthur or something related.--Sallicio^$\oplus$ 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, no, it's not original research -- it's unverified, which is not at all the same thing. Text that's unverified may be original research, or it may be a direct copy of someone else's research, or a encyclopedia summary that the editor simply didn't source. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Understandable point, however, if there are no references, the only thing a resonable and prudent person can surmise is that it is OR and unverified. The burden of proof of notability, references, third-party, etc. etc. etc. falls on the author, not the reader. Without this standard, WP looses credibility.--Sallicio^$\oplus$ 19:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• That said, I agree it should be merged to King Arthur or similarly suitable article, and that the action should be done by editors familiar with the articles in question rather than willinilly. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:15, 26 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.