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 not keep as an article, no consensus as to whether to merge the content to Celt or not. So I'm just redirecting it. Mergers can be done from the history, provided of course the editors of Celt consent. Sandstein 16:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic warriors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page attempts to cover a hugely broad swathe of history in a tiny space with no detail whatsoever. The Celts were a heterogenous group who really can't be lumped together in this way. It's comparable to having an article entitled "Germanic Warriors" starting with the battle of the Teutoberger Wald and ending with the Redcoats. The few salient points the article raises are all covered in Celt anyway. Unless anyone can come up with some way of improving it, it ought to be deleted. Mon Vier 15:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand, this seems to be a well-written article about a Welsh Rugby team.--Sandy Scott 16:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think the nominator has misunderstood the subject of this article, as it has nothing to do with the Celtics and the history of the Celtic language. It's about a Welsh Rugby team, which seems notable enough to have an article. Jayden54 16:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - Now that this AfD actually makes sense (thanks IslaySolomon!) I'm changing my vote to merge and redirect. The article doesn't really offer a lot of information, and could easily be merged with the Celt article. Jayden54 17:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep This is either a bizarre misunderstanding or today's piece of novelty vandalism. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ah, I see they mean Celtic warriors. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Right, fixed. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Ah, sorry about that. I have neither qualm nor quibble with the rugby team. Mon Vier 21:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Celt, per Jayden. —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment all warrior characteristics evidently seem to come from De Bellum Gallicum, of which we know that it was a total propaganda book by a certain Mr. Ceasar against the Gallic. Modern research distances itself from the descriptions contained in the article. Alf photoman 23:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom; no salvageble content. Eluchil404 10:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Still in favour of deletion, but if the article is redirected then Celtic warriors should redirect to Celtic Warriors - people are more likely to be looking for the rugby team. Mon Vier 18:51, 15 December 2006 (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.