Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dachuna

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect‎ to List of Anglo-Saxon saints. asilvering (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dachuna

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Dachuna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

contested PROD. a female Cornish Dachuna is only known from one singular mention by Hugh Candidus in a list of saints' resting places. i checked the Blair source as i have irl access to it, and the heading is "Summary list of late, non-English, or dubious saints who appear in the resting-place lists". according to Nicholas Orme's Saints of Cornwall,

The reference is presumably to Bodmin Priory, but no evidence survives from there about these saints, apart from Petroc. ... Dachuna is equally elusive in Cornwall, and a similar name in Ireland is male not female. ... In short, there is no certain Cornish context for these names; perhaps Hugh Candidus or his source conflated two places and ascribed saints to Bodmin who rightly belonged elsewhere.

there is no evidence that a female Cornish Dachuna ever existed. she is only known from one very dubious passing mention in a medieval source. fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Some of nominator's reasoning/historical commentary is a bit misguided, a lot of prominent subjects rely on a single source, Beowulf for instance is arguably one of those. Whether the saint itself ever existed as a person, who knows, but the cult did; like arguing Zeus didn't exist so the god's article should be deleted. Even the nomination shows that the subject is of scholarly interest. The saint's cult and commemoration are recorded in one of the major sources of information we have for early English saints. The article is a stub and needs more work, but that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable either. Ironically if the nominator had expended the same energy expanding the article as trying to get it deleted it might not be a stub, some of the info used above could be in the article in expounded form. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's not what i'm saying, and is entirely beside the point. there is nothing to add to this article, and there is no evidence beyond Hugh Candidus' brief mention that she existed and was buried at Bodmin, let alone that she had a cult or commemoration - scholarly sources, including the one you cited in the article, agree on that. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 if you did have any kind of expertise on Insular saints cults you'd know that they frequently spawn dopplegangers, gender changes, etc, etc, doesn't mean they are not notable. St Kentigern of Glasgow was likely a gender change, St Ninian of Whithorn is likely a doppleganger/invention (based on recent scholarship). Also, you've made your motivation clear, you are posting here because you want this deleted, right, what's there for me to 'speculate' about? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Deacon of Pndapetzim, can you give us your WP:THREE best sources that would show that the subject meets the notability guidelines at WP:GNG? That would help bring this discussion back on track. -- asilvering (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hugh Candidus and add mention of these dubious saints there as an AtD. (edit conflict) 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. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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?Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should say that, as I am a historian. You have managed to be patronizing and seem to be taking this AfD far too personally. Your redirect suggestions are inappropriate targets due to the unlikely historicity and singular reference of this purported saint. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not taking it personally at all. Why are the redirect suggestions 'inappropriate'? Listen, if you want to call yourself a historian because you did a history degree I'm not going to argue, but my points stands, these issues are specialised and complex, I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings but this is a public encyclopedia used by millions of people and the lack of relevant competence is important....but unfortunately if you don't recognise it yourself pointing it out any further is likely to be a waste of time on my part. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - especially if the information from Orme's Saints of Cornwall is added (which it should be). Yes, it's a sparse article, but that's not exactly unusual in medieval subjects. It is a bit of a borderline case, but yes, there does appear enough for me to consider this worth an article. I do not consider Hugh Candidus a good redirect target - that would imply that Hugh had some connection to this purported saint, where he is just the source. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think it might be worth noting that you were canvassed (diff) for participation in this AfD? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note my reply at Deacon's talk page - here addressing my knowing about this AfD before Deacon posted on my talk page. (I've long had Deacon's TP watchlisted - you might note the yearly Saturnalia posts that date back many years for him (and most everyone else where I have their userpages watchlisted) Ealdgyth (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pbritti, you are approaching this the wrong way, we are people with long-established interests in these articles. Ealdgyth isn't going to be 'canvassed' by anyone, let alone me. When I last checked she was one of the main contributors to articles on English Christianity. 10os articles in which she has an interest could be negatively affected by this selective attempt to impose deletionist maximalism on a relevant article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ealdgyth: Your response is a bit ridiculous when you only !voted here after being canvassed, failed to acknowledge that, and have not !voted in an AfD in over a year (and only five in the last five years). @Deacon of Pndapetzim: you explicitly sought the aid of a friendly editor, which is canvassing. I'll take this up with WP:AN next. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please WP:AGF. I will mention the discussion to anyone I think might be interested, I had no idea if Ealdgyth would agree with me or not, I didn't want this discussion to have no input from knowledgable people & just be me and the two of you. If I'd wanted to perform some wicked evil conspiracy on you I could have emailed her or lots of other people & you wouldn't have had a clue, seriously get a grip . Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the interest of fairness, i have added what little is available from Orme's book. i do not have access to the Jankulak book so i have no idea if there's more information in there. i stand by my nomination for deletion, however; i do not believe this is enough for a standalone article. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Redirect What's in the article right now really looks like, at best, passing mention in a single book. I would suggest that, unless significant improvement can be made to citation quality, there's not enough here to support a separate article. It's never going to be more than a stub. Suggest merging any relevant information into Saint Petroc. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my !vote to redirect. I'm somewhat on the fence about what would be the best redirect target. Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Petroc seems like a reasonable merge/redirect target to me. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A single passing mention is not enough to establish notability, despite some votes based on hypotheticals provided above. You don't need to be a historian, despite what one user claims, to realize that a lack of sources is worth considering. I do not have any objection to a redirect given the provided context. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per ATD, but not to Candidus or S. Petroc—where it would be UNDUE to contain what we have on a discrete saint, but rather to List of Anglo-Saxon saints, where Dachuna already has a slot. A list also created by The Historian™, so please present your diplomas on the door before commenting  :) SerialNumber54129 14:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    didn't realize she already was listed there; i've been working on sorting out the Cornish saints topic, not A-S saints, so i hadn't noticed. i concur that that's probably the best redirect target ... sawyer * he/they * talk 14:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Serial Number 54129 has raised a good question about whether Dachuna's origin there should be "British", "Anglo-Saxon", or "Saxon", which the learned historians here may be interested in weighing in on. CMD (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it is a good question, and as a not-learned not-historian i have some nonsense to contribute. Orme says Dachuna's name, unique in Cornwall/England, is similar to some saints found in Ireland, but that connection may be purely superficial. as she's just a (dubious) name in a list, it's not clear whether she would have been Cornish (Celtic-speaking) or Anglo-Saxon. "British" would probably be the least OR-y. at the same time, whether the A-S saints list should only include standalone articles is another question - i'd probably say yes, but i don't plan on working on that list for the time being and it's a bit out of scope of this AfD. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 10:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sawyer777:, I apologize for picking on your redirect suggestion! Was not meant to be a personal criticism at all. Sorry! SerialNumber54129 10:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    oh that's not at all how i read it! you're so good! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 10:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect but to a different target than suggested thus far: St Petroc's Church, Bodmin. Every secondary source on Dachuna refers only to Candidus' passing mention, so the only thing we can verify about her(?) is that she was said by Candidus to be buried at Bodmin Priory, where she was an associate of Petroc. I've added a line and reference about Credan, Medan and Dachuna on my proposed target, so it's a suitable redirect. This avoids the WP:UNDUE problems of redirecting to Candidus or Petroc and the identification problems of placing a Cornish saint on a list of Anglo-Saxons. Regardless of where it's redirected, there's no plausible grounds to keep this as a standalone page. The sourcing would indicate "delete," but I think Pbritti is right that a redirect would help guard against well-intentioned efforts to recreate the page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i wasn't expecting such lively (can you call it lively?) debate about where to redirect this. i think you make the best case so far. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ealdgyth and noting that inclusion on the Candidus list is itself adequately notable. The article itself explains the limitations of the source material. For medieval women, there are never a lot of sources. We also don’t seem to have anything like a “list of Saint’s resting places” on Wiki, which would actually be a somewhat plausible redirect to move the contents for stubs like this, but given we don’t, the content itself is worth preserving. Also must note we have already spent more bandwidth discussing this RfD than it is taking up on “teh wiki”. Montanabw(talk) 20:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For medieval women, there are never a lot of sources. that's just... not true at all. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SN. There seems to be simply not enough to write an article due to the one primary source. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. St Petroc's Church, Bodmin
  2. List of Anglo-Saxon saints
  3. Hugh Candidus

So I guess the question is which of these three redirects would be the ideal one? Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dachuna&oldid=1260704962"