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. Despite a low turnout of contributors to this discussion, consensus is for deletion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dail-Riabhach[edit]

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

I would like this page to be deleted mainly on the grounds that it is not historically accurate and seems to contain fictional material. Firstly the entire article is sourced from one, 17th-century source written by Sir Robert Gordon, 1st Baronet, which is known for its inaccuracies but can still often be used if balanced with accounts from other historians. The problem here is firstly that, the article which is about a battle between members of the Scottish Clan Mackay is not mentioned in either of the two main authorotive histories of the Clan Mackay: The Book of Mackay by Angus Mackay (1906) which is considered the definitive history of the clan makes no mention of it and neither does the History of the House and Clan of the Name Mackay by Robert Mackay (1829) which is also considered an authority on the subject. Secondly is the inconsistency with other Wikipedia articles which as I will explain may show fictional information: The story of this battle talks of in 1576 John Mackay, son of the dying Y Roy Mackay, chief of Clan Mackay and Neil Mackay, brother of the chief Y Roy Mackay. If you check the article Chiefs of Clan Mackay which has the definitive list of Mackay chiefs there is no mention of a chief called Iye (Y) Roy Mackay at this time (1576), as well as these other people not being found in the two authorotive Mackay histories previously mentioned. Therefore it would seem not only to be historically inaccurate but most probably fictional information which is a criteria for speedy deletion. QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's creator User:Psycotics1454 was banned in 2007 and is unlikely to be found for comment. I am unable to verify that Conflicts of the Clans exists. With the book being 300 years old and cited in multiple Wikipedia articles it would be nice to have a copy on Wikisource. There are some odd spammy websites that share parts of this book. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given what has been presented above, I'd be inclined to delete with no prejudice against recreation if someone can demonstrate that this happened and that the details presented are accurate. With only one source, it could be suggested that this fails WP:GNG as not being subject to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. If the reliability of the only source is in question anyway, lets to away with this for now. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. First, the 18th Century source tells the story. It's far less Braveheart and far more Hatfields and McCoys. This wasn't a battle with an infantry line and cavalry. It's a couple guys feuding and the article creates a narrative beyond the source material. The source calls it a skirmish, not a battle. The only other mention of this "battle" was published years after this article and probably copied content from it. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I do not know enough of Scottish history to comment whehter the source is reliable. However there certainly was private warfare between clans. Is this a sample nomination? If not should someone not be considering much of the content of the template at the foot of the page under discussion? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reply -- Most of the articles in the template are well sourced and I have worked on many of them. However I nominated this one for the reasons above and it seems to be an odd one out in terms of the article quality and reliability of the sources.QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well researched and convincing argument by QuintusPetillius.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2014 (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.