Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mwynyw

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. seicer | talk | contribs 12:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mwynyw

There are no meaningful Google hits (including Google Books and Google Scholar) or Yahoo hits for this term. The one citation (not on-line) given by the author is flawed in several ways discussed at the article's Talk page and is therefore not sufficiently credible as a reference. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suspect a semi-hoax. With medieval Welsh there is always the possibility of different spellings, but no relevant non-WP ghits on 2 possible spellings. Where exactly was this supposed to be geographically? Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not impossible that this represents a simple typo for Mynyw, known in English as the town of St David's. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - but the content is then all wrong isn't it? Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Menevia suggests that the name Menevia / Mynyw covered a larger territory than the current town; the named diocese covers more than a third of the territory of Wales. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But at the period mentioned (11th cent) it would have been part of Deheubarth surely. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, one version of the boundaries of Mynyw/Menevia can be seen at Dewisland (hundred). It does seem to be a fairly large territory, but hardly a kingdom, rather a cantref or hundred. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well a Commote, the next level down, according to that article. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete looks like a hoax as the book (the supposed source) doesn't seem to exist according to Google Books anyway. Weak because I'm not as good at the book and scholar searches as many others on here. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and Comment the books exist and can be found at search terms, and covers v. 3. The reign of Harold and the interregnum which aligns with the pre-WtC dates, though vol.3 is unavailable. This sort of geographic area could be expected to appear in other encyclopaedia if real and such would get a mention in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. I cannot find such a mention in volume 19 Mun...-Old... - billinghurst (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the book cited in the article, and there is no assertion in either the article or in this discussion that "Mwynyw" appears in the book you've identified. For kicks, I searched the volumes that the Internet Archive you looked at did return, and none of them have "Mwynyw" or "Mynyw" or "Menevia" or "Menepia". So we really still don't have a single valid reference to back up the assertions made in the article! I'm thinking that if the author of the article got so confused on which work he was citing, he might equally as well have conflated unrelated pieces of information into his article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonsense hoax. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether this is a hoax or not, it seems confused and difficult to reference. Possible redirect candidate to St David's, which is where Mynyw currently redire ts. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but in the abscence of any ghits for this spelling, it doesn't seem necessary. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can assure you that Mynyw (but not "Mwynyw"!) is indeed the Welsh form of the Latin name Menevia, meaning Saint David's (Tyddewi) and usually used to refer to the bishopric, but the "article" itself is the purest bulls**t. Seems no point in redirecting the hoaxer's obvious typo either. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, seeing the above discussion after adding my comment, I thought I should add that Mynyw is also the name for the cwmwd in which the city of St David's stands, in the cantref of Pebidiog, but it was never a kingdom or sub-kingdom or anyhting remotely like a realm ever. The "article" is pure nonsense and should be deleted. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the person who created this hoax has also been up to other tricks. He seems to take a valid reference picked up on the web (allowin for his typo here) and then writes a load of nonsense with a veneer of historicity in the opening paragraph. I've just edited Mynyddawg Mwynfawr (genuine character) which was full of patent rubbish (see here for the original!). I'm going to check out what else he's been up to, but it's late in the day for me: anybody else feel like doing so as well? Suggest a strong warning shot across the bows at least (personally I'd ban him, but I'm not an admin here). Enaidmawr (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - He/she would also appear to have the sockpuppet Omegazim. Not sure if this is the best place to put this, but if anybody here is an admin could they please check this out and do something about it? I suspect leads to other incarnations of this serial hoaxer/joker could be found. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whether or not it's a hoax; it fails WP:V. Based on the comments above from people who know a lot more about medieval Wales than me, there's no way we can write an article on this subject. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:51, 24 September 2008 (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.