Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dachuna: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →Dachuna: edit reply to Deacon of Pndapetzim |
re |
||
Line 21:
::''that's not what i'm saying'' I don't know specifically what 'that' means here, but everything I've said addresses the points you've raised. ''there ''is'' nothing to add to this article'' How do you know what can be added to the article? Your reasoning is misguided, just because there is only one source doesn't mean there is nothing more to be said. It's also clearly wrong as a statement, you could have added the quote above to the article, for instance, instead of using it here. Again, misspent effort. An established, culted medieval saint is intrinsically notable and there will be more scholarship, either material existing but unused or in the future. I find the logic and motivation here alarming, you would clear out so many important articles on Wikipedia. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 15:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::this is not an "established, culted medieval saint". that is what the ''very sparse'' sourcing says - that this was probably a mistake on Hugh's part. and i know that there is nothing to add because i've looked for good sourcing on this saint, and have come up very short. Dachuna does not even have her own entry in the very, very thorough and authoritative Orme book, nor does she have any dedications, known feast days, or folklore. the ''only'' thing we know about this supposed saint is where she was supposedly buried, from one singular passing mention. please do not speculate about my motivations, either. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 15:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::It might be useful if people here who aren't historians stop commenting on the historicity of the saint, you don't know what you are talking about. Because a commentator speculates that it might be a mistake by Hugh, that's not the last word, we do not have satisfactory let alone exhaustive source coverage of religion in 12th century Cornwall. Also, I'm not speculating about your motivation, you've made your motivation clear, I'm not clear what you are referring to here, you are posting here because you want this deleted, right? [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 15:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Redirect''' to [[Hugh Candidus]] and add mention of these dubious saints there as an AtD. {{ec}} I concur with Sawyer's assessment here that a full article on an almost certainly non-existent saint should not warrant an article when coverage has been so sparse and exclusively focused on the likely falsity of the original claim. However, saint articles have a tendency to reappear due to the general assumption of notability many editors believe they have. A redirect that indicates the spurious origin may stave off any misguided efforts to revive the page. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 15:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:: It might be useful if people here who aren't historians stop commenting on the historicity of the saint, neither of you know what you are talking about. I don't mean to sound patronising, but the source problems here and the historical issues surrounding the evolution of saints cults are very complex. Also, why would you redirect it to Hugh Candidus? Surely if you were going to delete it you'd just redirect it to [[List of Cornish saints]] or [[List of Anglo-Saxon saints]]?[[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 15:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
| |||