- 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 no consensus. This is a difficult one, but it does appear that a case that the term exists and is not a neologism can be made (esp. the Humble reference). On the other side, the fact that the GHits reduce by 90% when wiki-mirrors are removed suggests that the term is at best obscure. I would suggest that more research is probably needed here and the no-consensus close allows for a re-nomination if necessary. On a more trivial note, Nev1's comment that "Alan Titchmarsh is not a reliable source about castles" made me laugh for a very long time (it's a Brit thing, I think). Black Kite (t) (c) 22:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Linear castle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The term "linear castle" is not one I have come across while reading about castles. None of Allen Brown, Cathcart King, McNeil mention "linear castles", and Friar's Sutton Companion to Castles doesn't have an entry for the term (see Castle#References); considering the book is over 300 pages long and covers everything from argent to plas, I'd say that's pretty much conclusive proof that what we have here is a neologism. Pastscape, run by English Heritage has never heard of the term, despite the article claiming Tintagel is a linear castle (not something I noticed in the guidebook). You get about 2,000 results from Google, but these dwindle to less than 200 when Wikipedia is taken out of the equation (ie: Wikipedia and sites getting their information from Wikipedia). The result of all this is that "linear castle" is not a term recognised in castle studies and its article needs to be deleted as it's clearly confusing matter. Nev1 (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Fortifications task force notified. User:Dweller (article creator) notified. Nev1 (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable. (Perhaps this discussion should be listed under Technology rather than Society?) Perspicaris (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Let me elaborate. It can indeed be verified that the term "linear castle" is used in the tourism industry and by people like Alan Titchmarsh. What has not been verified is this supposed "theory of linear castles" in contradistinction to the (well-established) concept of concentric castles. The claims about Margat and Krak are particularly bizarre, as they are both concentric (albeit not circular...). Perspicaris (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as verifiable. (BBC), English Castles (Richard Humble, Artus Books 1984) defines a linear castle (p148) as "Castles with baileys or wards arranged in a chain, instead of inside the other as with concentric castles. The usual development of castles sited on ridges of high ground", which seems a good definition to me. And I suppose that pair should suffice for Wikipedia. I'm surprised the nominator hasn't come across the term in his reading - it's hardly an obscure one, and it crops up often enough in discussions of concentric castles as a counterpoint. --Dweller (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sceptical of the use of the BBC when there are higher quality sources available relating to the subject. First of all, its definition of a concentric castle is dubious; if it was simply a matter of being "defended equally around its circumference", then tower houses would be considered concentric castles as they are generally equally (poorly) defended around the circumference (see the plan of Nunney Castle, Somerset, as an example). A concentric castle is one with two or more circuits of defence within each other (concentrically as it happens) with emphasis on the curtain walls for defence as opposed to the keep in earlier castles. The later phase of Krak des Chevaliers was one such example. Secondly the example it gives of a linear castle is not supported by the guidebook written on Caernarfon by Cadw. Caernarfon is not a great example of this concept, unless you include the town walls; it's a better example of an enclosure castle (admittedly, a very general term). As for Humble, I confess I've never heard of him and have not encountered his work; neither have I heard of Artus books, what kind of publisher are they? Sadly, I'm not infallible and may well have missed the term in my reading, but even English Heritage don't seem to use the term "linear castle". While Google books is of course not comprehensive, it certainly indicates that the suggested frequent juxtaposition of the terms "linear castle" and "concentric castle" isn't correct (2,370 results for concentric castle, 9 results for linear castle). I am familiar with the concept being explained in the article, Chepstow Castle is a particularly good example, but have never come across the term before. As explained in the nominating statement, if this term isn't used by the heavy-weights of castle studies, it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Nev1 (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It looks like a neogolism (in the sense that neogolism for fortifications could still be 30 years old) by the BBC and whoever wrote one DK book on castles. It's going to be a permanent stub because it is just concentric (concentric in terms of fortifications does not mean circular, it just means high curtain wall behind lower outside walls) defenses in a line and only occurs in 9 books. Directing attackers along a specific path was well known at the time and a lot of "non-standard" castles took advantage of terrain by directing them into various troughs and whatnot (L-plan castlecomes to mind).--Savonneux (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is not a neologism because these are not new words and they are used in their ordinary sense. I have added some references. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding sources, but as I've explained above, using the BBC is perhaps not the best idea, and Alan Titchmarsh is not a reliable source regarding castles. Nev1 (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. Does not appear to be a well established and accepted term. Nsk92 (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Invalidating the BBC seems bogus to me. It's a reliable source using a term that's clearly not a neologism (neo means new). I can see what you mean about Titchmarsh, perhaps, but the "DK" comment about Richard Humble's book is out of line and uncalled for. There's two solid references there and I can't understand the continued press to undermine them and call for deletion, because some people have yet to come across the term in their reading. --Dweller (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the absence of better sources, I would agree that the BBC meets Wikipedia's policy for reliable sources, however it's not reliable enough when there's better out there and there clearly are. If you're worried by my use of the word "neologism", feel free to ignore it, perhaps that was poor phrasing on my part that is confusing the issue, but the bottom line is that this term is not generally accepted. Nev1 (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this change your opinion? Nev1 (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it persuades you, perhaps you're lining up an AfD for Hill fort, Hoarding or Machicolation, as they're not mentioned either. No-one is claiming it's a universally-used term, merely that it is notable. I no longer have access to a university library - I'm dependent on the few books I have and the web, which is, as pointed out, full of back references to our article, rendering it impossible to trawl properly. I'd start by looking at Prestwich and Taylor, the two most prominent names (especially the latter) in English castle writing, neither of whom is mentioned in your litany at the top. In the absence of this, and with my Wikipedia time severely limited (see my contribs) I've found two reliable sources that discuss the term fully, which passes our usual bar. --Dweller (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevance of hill forts to this discussion is beyond me, and your comments regarding hoarding and machicolations are facetious. Please do not put words into my mouth and remain focussed on the topic. The sources listed at the top are a sample of those who do not use the term, again not comprehensive, but sufficient to demonstrate that the term is not generally accepted. You have provided one decent source, although haven't responded to a request for more details of the book, and dismissed out of hand the argument that the BBC should not be used. I refer you again to the exclusion of the term from Friar's wide-ranging book; indeed some criticised him for being too inclusive, for example choosing to have individual entries on "keep", "Great Tower", "hall-keep", "donjon", "clustered donjon", "keep-gatehouse", and "shell-keep" rather than a single one for "keep" encompassing all the above. Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re hill forts and the other terms, you asked me to reconsider my position because "linear castle" didn't appear in the source you presented. But it also omits a host of other terminology - my reply wasn't trying to be facetious, but to reply to your point. As for facetiousness, there's only been one appalling comment in this AfD and I didn't make it. There was a comment about a source I presented being a "DK", for which I understood a demeaning reference to it being a children's book, which was a low blow. I've not until now seen your request for more info on the book - like I say, my time here is limited, but I've seen the question now. I've no idea how to respond to the question what kind of publisher they are - they published the book and it's on my shelf. Other than that I've no idea. I don't have Friar's book, but his omission of a term does not render it not notable. Neither does it obliterate the fact that I've presented two reliable sources, each of which deals with the term in a non trivial manner. --Dweller (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw this just as I was about to log off, and while I don't have time to deal with all your points immediately (my time here isn't unlimited either), I want to make sure that you do realise that a hill fort is an Iron Age structure which has pretty much nothing to do with castles, right? The two shouldn't be confused; a castle on a hill is not the same as a hill fort (I recommend consulting Darvill's Dictionary of Archaeology). The term has a specific definition and, understandably I think, I assumed you were joking. There is an interesting correlation that some castles were built on the site of hill forts (Beeston Castle and Liddel Strength spring to mind), but that's a completely separate issue to a hill fort being a castle in the same way that Roman forts were not castles although some castles (Lancaster, Portchester, the Brough etc) were built within them. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re hill forts and the other terms, you asked me to reconsider my position because "linear castle" didn't appear in the source you presented. But it also omits a host of other terminology - my reply wasn't trying to be facetious, but to reply to your point. As for facetiousness, there's only been one appalling comment in this AfD and I didn't make it. There was a comment about a source I presented being a "DK", for which I understood a demeaning reference to it being a children's book, which was a low blow. I've not until now seen your request for more info on the book - like I say, my time here is limited, but I've seen the question now. I've no idea how to respond to the question what kind of publisher they are - they published the book and it's on my shelf. Other than that I've no idea. I don't have Friar's book, but his omission of a term does not render it not notable. Neither does it obliterate the fact that I've presented two reliable sources, each of which deals with the term in a non trivial manner. --Dweller (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevance of hill forts to this discussion is beyond me, and your comments regarding hoarding and machicolations are facetious. Please do not put words into my mouth and remain focussed on the topic. The sources listed at the top are a sample of those who do not use the term, again not comprehensive, but sufficient to demonstrate that the term is not generally accepted. You have provided one decent source, although haven't responded to a request for more details of the book, and dismissed out of hand the argument that the BBC should not be used. I refer you again to the exclusion of the term from Friar's wide-ranging book; indeed some criticised him for being too inclusive, for example choosing to have individual entries on "keep", "Great Tower", "hall-keep", "donjon", "clustered donjon", "keep-gatehouse", and "shell-keep" rather than a single one for "keep" encompassing all the above. Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it persuades you, perhaps you're lining up an AfD for Hill fort, Hoarding or Machicolation, as they're not mentioned either. No-one is claiming it's a universally-used term, merely that it is notable. I no longer have access to a university library - I'm dependent on the few books I have and the web, which is, as pointed out, full of back references to our article, rendering it impossible to trawl properly. I'd start by looking at Prestwich and Taylor, the two most prominent names (especially the latter) in English castle writing, neither of whom is mentioned in your litany at the top. In the absence of this, and with my Wikipedia time severely limited (see my contribs) I've found two reliable sources that discuss the term fully, which passes our usual bar. --Dweller (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's probably worth bearing in mind that Wiki's mission is verifiability, not truth, and so if RS's mention it, so should we. The BBC seems like a good source, although I do wonder how old that page is, and where they gleaned their info from (it reads a little too much like the wiki article to me, but that might just be me - I'd welcome anyone else's tech know-how to find out when it was created). I'm afraid that in this context I don't consider Mr Titchmarsh a qualified source. He's very good at what he does, but there are far better sources to guide us on this than a single throwaway line in a general history book, so I'm afraid I'm going to ignore that ref. I can't comment on the other source mentioned here, but I can say that Ian V. Hogg doesn't appear to use the term in his relevant books (despite extensive references to concentric castles), nor have I heard of the term before (or find it in my mistmatch of other texts). I'd be inclined to say redirect to spur castle for this article, but I must confess I can't find much info about that term either! In many ways this article seems to read like a mix of that article and Defence in depth and I wonder if the sources mentioned are using it as an alternative description for the same thing. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the term is simply obscure rather than a hoax, then it seems to me that the AfD rationale is without merit. Even if the term is exceedingly rare, it would be better to rediect and merge it, rather than delete outright... the question is where? (thus why I have not enetered a !vote yet). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 22:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The BBC site linked to in the article confirms this is a real thing. Google book search shows three books that feature it: Britain's Best: The Nation's Favourite Historic Places, Great Castles of Britain & Ireland Lise Hull - History - 2009, The Cambridge cultural history of Britain: Modern Britain. Dream Focus 11:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Claiming that because the BBC has used the term means that such things must exist is a bit of a false argument. The BBC article lists no sources, no author, and almost certainly cannot be considered an expert source. Given Nev's experience with Castle articles and his undoubted familiarity with the subject and sources, I can't fault his argument. Parrot of Doom 15:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Parrot of Doom. SnottyWong talk 22:42, 21 May 2010 (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.