Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bánánach

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. J04n(talk page) 13:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bánánach[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in the media, not newsworthy, and not notable. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOT. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~oh I see, it's merely a foreign-language redirect to banshee, I think. That's what I glean from the Google books results, anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]
Comment - Actually, the only place I find the term is references to Melissa Marr's fictional book Wicked Lovely, which allude to the term being Irish mythology. However, searching the National Folklore Collection at University College Dublin , nothing comes up. I'm pretty sure if this was Irish folklore, they'd have it. — Maile (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, this one says this one says it's associated with the Bocánach? I'm thoroughly confused. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if it's not the banshee, then I do think there is probably a notable if obscure being in Irish mythology, here, that does merit an article -- whether or not this is the article. I would assume that an Irish Gaelic-language search might find more sources... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's into the wee small hours for me, so I'll take a look at it tomorrow, but you might have more luck with the plural form Bánánaigh (or na Bánánaigh). (They do pop up in the Táin; they're more akin to an Irish Valkyrie than the banshee, from what I vaguely remember.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Still looking. I have to admit that although the bananaigh are mentioned in the Táin Bó Cúailgne and in the Book of Ballymote version of the Fionn MacCumhail story, I can't find any detailed academic discussions of them, which might indicate a lack of discussion or just a lack of such discussion being available online. I'll keep trying. (Sorry about the delay getting back to this; technical problems on my end.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a few sources which discuss the topic in Celtic studies/Irish language journals; it appears to have a small piece in the literature. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a merge to a list of spectres/creatures/spirits/whatever from Irish myth, but I'd imagine that someone with access to the right literature and a much better knowledge of the area than me could write a very interesting article about this topic (a lot of it, I'd imagine, would be etymological). Josh Milburn (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to dictionary. All we have is a dictionary definition, now with references. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's been several comments suggesting additional research is/has taken place, but nobody has reported back with views. @Flowerpotman: particularly, would you like to revisit this debate? Relisting as no clear consensus on keep/delete/transwiki at this time. KaisaL (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I had added a ref when I deprodded. That got overwritten somehow and I have restored it. We now have two online sources and two offline. I beleive notability has been established. There are suggestions for additional improvements on the article's talk page. ~Kvng (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - This is essentially a DICDEF with references, as was noted above. If there's somewhere to merge it to, merge it, but I don't particularly see there being a viable target. The difficulty with which verification was met pretty much indicates that locating enough material to write a suitable articles is not and may never be forthcoming, given the stated small role in the literature (thus there is no depth of coverage). WP:V is not WP:GNG, and WP:ENN always applies. MSJapan (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The reason the article is essentially a dictionary definition is that I am not qualified to write much more. There is more material in the sources cited (take a look, if you have access) but it's moderately complex discussion by academics in various aspects of Celtic/Gaelic studies. It's too far removed from my own knowledge for me to be able to confidently do much with it; I imagine that someone more capable than myself would be able to expand this article with (at least) quotations from the texts which mention the entity, a summary of the academic debate about the etymology of the term, and the differences and similarities between this entity and other battlefield spirits. We shouldn't be deleting articles on subjects about which there is serious literature just because none of us are able to do much with that literature; that's exactly the kind of anti-intellectualism for which Wikipedia is frequently criticised. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the missing sources have been identified and added to the article, establishing notability and as Josh explains, there is material to further develop the article: there is no WP:DEADLINE for making it perfect today and no rush to delete it. The current state of the article is not a reason to delete it when that outlook for further development is shown conform WP:DEL-CONTENT. DeVerm (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and not because the contents are particularly satisfying but, at best, this case shows enough to keep for now at least. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 9 July 2016 (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.