- 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The result was Speedy keep, withdrawn by nominator. Non-deletion remedies can be discussed at the article talk page. The only other delete voter has expressed support for this measure.--Cúchullain t/c 17:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cynllibiwg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The idea of a "kingdom" or "polity" of Cynllibiwg seems to appear only in the works of one individual, British castle enthusiast Paul Remfry, who is by all indications a very nice and knowledgeable bloke, but who hasn't been published in scholarly presses. The only evidence for Cynllibiwg at all are three debatable references in medieval texts, which Remfry draws together with a lot of conjecture. There are no mainstream scholarly sources that mention Cynllibiwg, and Remfry's thesis doesn't appear notable in and of itself. Relevant material already appears at other articles, but a merge or redirect to any of these would not really be appropriate, as the only connection that has been drawn is by Remfry. Cúchullain t/c 19:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —Cúchullain t/c 19:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are a fair number of hits in Gbooks on this word. Is anyone knowledgeable enough on this subject to tell if 1) it's the same Cynllibiwg, and 2) if it's enough coverage to count as notability. Also, whilst lack of coverage certainly isn't good for notability, any coverage that debunks the proposal does count. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or perhaps merge if an appropriate target is found. Four books that I can find reference it as a kingdom or dynasty, but it certainly seems like a niche that could be covered by a redirect to an existing article. -Miskaton (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I count 14 hits on Gbooks for Cynllibiwg. Many of these are books directly referencing Renfry's work, which does show that his idea has gotten somewhat more traction in scholarly presses than I'd thought, but I don't think it's enough to demonstrate that his idea is notable enough for its own encyclopedia article. Some of the other hits are editions of the Historia Brittonum or references to it. The Historia does contain a mention of a place called Cinlipiuc, which has been rendered as Cynllibiwg; however, there is no indication that this is a kingdom or polity (it's called simply a regione). If we were to merge or redirect, we would still be putting a whole lot of weight on Remfry's novel theory.--Cúchullain t/c 20:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — The idea of a "kingdom Cynllibiwg" has gotten no traction in any scholarly works that I found (including those in the links given above). There is no mention of anything like it in any scholarly work by any reputable authority of which I am aware, past or present. Building an article on the speculation/conjecture of a layman who has no credentials in the field (such as Remfry) sounds like an expression of a "fringe theory" or "popular history". Cynllibiwg is, however, mentioned in works that do not support the article's thesis. For example, in the 4 books mentioned above by Miskaton:
- "Welsh military institutions" makes a passing reference without citing its source on one page, and in a footnote of another page, where it refers to the "re-establishment of local autonomy in Cynllibiwg", citing Trans. Radnorshire Soc (1995). Nothing suggesting a kingdom.
- "Thirteenth Century England: Proceedings of the Gregynog Conference, 2005" has a footnote that states without authority that Rhwng Gwy a Hafren was originally the 4th kingdom of Wales and was known as Cynllibiwg. It may be someone's OR, but is not traction, and certainly not a scholarly reference on this topic.
- "The Welsh Princes" has a passing reference (without citing sources) to "Hywel ap Goronwy, scion of the house of Cynllibiwg", in a paragraph saying Ystrad Tywi was comprised of the lordships of Cantref Mawr, Bychan, Cydweli and Gower. Nothing suggesting a kingdom.
- "Wales in the Early Middle Ages" by Wendy Davies mentions it as a nondescript region in passing, as was pointed out in the article's talk page quite some time ago. Nothing suggesting a kingdom.
- Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
but modify content. There is enough material to justify the existence of an article on this. The problem is the content, and statements like "Cynllibiwg was an area...." We don't know that to be the case. "Cynllibiwg is a name given to an area of Wales which some scholars have suggested ....", etc., and covered around by caveats, would make for a more legitimate (and probably very short) article. But an article of some sort should exist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have rewritten the article to remove speculation based on Remfry, as well as the material included to counter it. As you can see all that is left is a bald description of the mention in the Historia Brittonum, followed by two scholars' suggestions that words in later English texts may be related. However, the reference in the Red Book of the Exchequer is still sketchy, as I can't tell that the editor actually suggested that there was a connection with Cynllibiwg. If this connection only appears in Remfry's work then that whole couple of sentences will have to go, leaving even less information.--Cúchullain t/c 14:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better now. Definite keep. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The comments by Cúchullain and Notuncurious that Remfry's views are only self-published are incorrect - they have been published in the journal British Archaeology, a reliable source, here, and are cited by the Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust (CPAT) here. I'm not suggesting that his statements should be given undue weight, just that they should be given some weight. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I did not say that, neither here nor in my response to your note on Talk:Cynllibiwg in section "Remfry 2K9".
- The comments by Cúchullain and Notuncurious that Remfry's views are only self-published are incorrect - they have been published in the journal British Archaeology, a reliable source, here, and are cited by the Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust (CPAT) here. I'm not suggesting that his statements should be given undue weight, just that they should be given some weight. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better now. Definite keep. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have rewritten the article to remove speculation based on Remfry, as well as the material included to counter it. As you can see all that is left is a bald description of the mention in the Historia Brittonum, followed by two scholars' suggestions that words in later English texts may be related. However, the reference in the Red Book of the Exchequer is still sketchy, as I can't tell that the editor actually suggested that there was a connection with Cynllibiwg. If this connection only appears in Remfry's work then that whole couple of sentences will have to go, leaving even less information.--Cúchullain t/c 14:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I said Remfry's credentials in archaeology do not translate out of his area of competence into credentials in other fields such as political history. Also, the Council for British Archaeology publishes scholarly papers on archaeology, which is their area of expertise, and that does not include political history. Your other link with the list of publications is for archaeology, not political history. If they publish a paper in an area out of their area of expertise, such as one on political history (ie, Remfry's), that is not to give the author credit for scholarly publications out of his area of expertise.
- One of the characteristics of "fringe" theories (whether or not they have merit) is they pick areas where information is minimal, which ensures that they will not be proven wrong, because if there is no evidence, then there will be no evidence that they are wrong. Also, since they do not have professional credentials to defend, they are free to promulgate virtually any kind of theory. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I don't think we have the authority to cherry pick like that. A report published in a reliable source meets criteria for inclusion - we shouldn't be adding our own opinions as to whether it was legitimate for that source to have published it. If other reliable sources criticise Remfry's work, we should of course quote them as well - but I haven't seen anything that does, only the opinions of editors here. Sorry, but they don't count, however well qualified they may be. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the characteristics of "fringe" theories (whether or not they have merit) is they pick areas where information is minimal, which ensures that they will not be proven wrong, because if there is no evidence, then there will be no evidence that they are wrong. Also, since they do not have professional credentials to defend, they are free to promulgate virtually any kind of theory. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- The fact that the subject is referred to scholarly works ought to be sufficient for the retention of the article. The real problem here is the dearth of sources on this part of Wales in the early medieval period. This means that virtually nothing is certainly known of the history of mid-Wales before (say) 1150. Paul Remfry has put forward a theory that Cynllibiwg was a kingdom. Whether or not that is correct will remain a matter of scholarly debate until kingdom come or until at least further sources emerge (which is highly improbable). The sources cited for the name (or versions of it) do exist. When the article was being actively edited I took the time to visit an acedemic library and check the texts. However, precisely where, how big, and what it was cannot be determined. Nevertheless, the referecnes cited to it clearly indicate that it was something. Since it existed, it is proper for it to have an article. A "kingdom" in this context need not mean a sovereign state: in this period, sovereignty was a matter of degree. Welsh kings frequently attended the courts of Saxon rulers, indicating that the Saxon king was their suzerain. Unfortunately I do not have ready access to Trans Radnorshire Soc and am unable to determine what it says. The article needs to set out the facts, consisting of the references to the name. It then needs to set out the opinions of scholars as to what this measn. I see no objection to this being heavily hedged about with caveats, concerning the doubts expressed over it; indeed that would be wholly proper. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC) (note edit conflict with last contribnution).[reply]
- I suffered an edit conflict with Cúchullain. His shortening of the article was excessive, and I thus approve of what Ghmyrtle has done. I have slightly altered this further. The fact that Remfry has propounded a view and that other scholars have responded to it justifies having the article. It is unfortuante that Remfry choses to self-publish, not to publish in scholarly journals, but that does not wholly invalidate his work. The final paragraph of the presetn text introduces "Kenthlebiac" (which is I think a rendering of one of the other two quotations). This still needs explanation. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia isn't concerned with whether or not theories are valid, but only that they can be found in reliable sources so that readers can vet them. In this case, Remfry's theory is cited only to his personal website, which in turn cites his own self-published books. I don't like to bring up the FRINGE guideline, as this is certainly not the type of baseless crankery that we so often see in this field, but the guideline's wording is apt: "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." This is not the case for Remfry's thesis, and without that thesis, all that's left are three medieval references which may or may not be to the same thing.--Cúchullain t/c 16:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User Cuchullain has been pursuing a personal crusade against me and other editors wiki's for a while. He tries to make his case seem reasonable and logical, but it is in fact driven by a hard-line revisionist ideology that basically seeks to push the view that nothing we think we know is true. References to Cynllibiwg in Rhyn gwy a Hafren do come up to readers of medieval Welsh history and I think it is reasonable to have a reference to that word, and potential realm, in wikipedia for readers to look up. A brief statement saying what the available academics think this name might refer to is only going to add to the comprehensive content of wikipedia without alarming people like Cuchullain who seem convinced, in some extraordinary conspiratorial paradigm, that there is a plot to 'invent' history. Certainly Welsh polities existed in that territory before the Norman Conquest, archaeological and literal evidence supports that. Cynllibiwg is the name given (based on literal sources) by some academics for that territory.I do not think it is fair or acceptable for Cuchullain - an anonymous user/editor with no qualifications in this matter at all - to call Dr. Remfry a "crank". James Frankcom 16:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't concerned with whether or not theories are valid, but only that they can be found in reliable sources so that readers can vet them. In this case, Remfry's theory is cited only to his personal website, which in turn cites his own self-published books. I don't like to bring up the FRINGE guideline, as this is certainly not the type of baseless crankery that we so often see in this field, but the guideline's wording is apt: "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." This is not the case for Remfry's thesis, and without that thesis, all that's left are three medieval references which may or may not be to the same thing.--Cúchullain t/c 16:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suffered an edit conflict with Cúchullain. His shortening of the article was excessive, and I thus approve of what Ghmyrtle has done. I have slightly altered this further. The fact that Remfry has propounded a view and that other scholars have responded to it justifies having the article. It is unfortuante that Remfry choses to self-publish, not to publish in scholarly journals, but that does not wholly invalidate his work. The final paragraph of the presetn text introduces "Kenthlebiac" (which is I think a rendering of one of the other two quotations). This still needs explanation. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in current form. It gives the substance in a NPOV form. It is reasonable to expect someone to look it up here. The ultimate validity is for historians, not us. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After Ghmyrtle's addition of a proper citation for the Remfry material and our rewrite, I would like to withdraw this AfD. We can discuss non-deletion options such as merging or redirecting at the article's talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 13:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. That sounds practical, and we can move on. Regards, Notuncurious (talk)
- 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.