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 No prejudice to recreating the article or addition of information to the articles Kingdom of Strathclyde or Selgovae provided that it can be attributed to a reliable, verifiable source. Mandsford 17:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selcovia[edit]

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

The article seems to be based on assertions at this site, which by consensus is not a reliable site. No independent citations are provided, and the information in the article is highly dubious at best. Other editors have searched for "Selcovia" on Harvard's library system's historical journal abstracts and a few other databases and come up with nothing. It may be a hoax - if not, it is non-notable and/or WP:FRINGE. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple attempts to find reliable sources to verify this article have drawn a blank. If not a hoax, it is at the least deeply non-notable. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's noticeable that there is nothing in Scholar. The sources that I can find all use much the same language, suggesting a common origin, and even they say only that one Senyllt: "appears to have become king of the region around Selkirkshire where the people were known as the Selgovae. Although the name of his kingdom is unknown, for identification purposes, the Latin 'Selcovia,' would seem appropriate." A name made up one day because it "would seem appropriate" is not a good enough foundation for a Wikipedia article. Per WP:NEO we would need evidence that it was a widely accepted term. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- This is based on this webpage. However the problem is that this is a postulated name for the kingdom, which appears to have been a part of the kingdom of Strathclyde. The information on the website is sufficiently precise for me to believe that this is not a hoax. The Welsh practised partible inheritance, where the land and even kingdoms were divided between brothers, so that the claim that this happened in Strathclyde, another Celtic kingdom, is not incredible. This is a remote period in the Dark Ages, where the sources are very thin indeed, and the ultimate source is probably a Welsh genealogy. We have an article on the Selgovae (which refers to the people apparently ruled), but largely at an earlier period. The website cited appears to give three generations of kings, but it would be better to provide individual biographies for them and only include a list of kings in the article. We certainly cannot keep the article with its present name (which is a reconstruction. The book cited looks as if it is from a publisher specialising in Arthurian legends, and is probably not an ideal source either. If the only information is in genealogies, it will be better to cite a published edition of these. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If some one can identify a better source, I am willing to do the merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be happy without much better sourcing - I can find no kind of confirmation in Scholar, suggesting that serious historians have not documented this. "Arthurian legends" are easy to make up; this site has a vast list of supposed post-Roman royalty, for which I simply do not believe there are reliable sources, and even this site uses a lot of "would appear to have been", "It seems likely that... " and "They apparently settled... " There really isn't a solid enough foundation for an article. JohnCD (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am unfamiliar with this particular case of the so-called kings of 'Selcovia', but I am with similar work, scholarly and otherwise, on these pedigrees as they relate to early Strathclyde, Gododdin, and other neighbors to this supposed Selcovia. The surviving pedigrees are just names, usually devoid of context (not even 'kingdom' or tribe) except for their relative chronology (e.g. two contemporary leaders who were allies are shown in the same generation of descent from some heroic mythical common ancestor such as King Coel - all of the pedigrees are socio-political constructs, not authentic ancestry) and rare informative nicknames (one individual has the nickname 'Eidin' suggesting that he is being credited with the foundation of what would become Edinburgh) or eponymous ancestors (usually uninterpretable with regard to the historical Roman-era tribes). Separately, there are semi-legendary accounts of battles in which named leaders participated. Based on the arrangements of the pedigrees, and the locations and apparent alliances in battles, both scholars and Arthurian fringe authors have made guesses as to which of the tribal warbands or 'kingdoms' the individuals led. I doubt the identifications of these 'kings' with the Selgovae has passed scholarly rigor. In fact, there appears debate as to whether the Selgovae even existed at this time - a quick Google Books search turns up Alf Smyth in Warlords and Holy Men: Scotland AD 80-1000 [p. 20] writing "The survival of the Selgovae and Novantae into the Dark Ages may be in doubt, . . . ", while a history of Dunbar Park briefly states, "Of the four tribes recorded by Roman writers in Southern Scotland, the Votadini, Novantae, Damnonii and Selgovae, the first three appear to have retained their tribal identities into the post-Roman period as the Gododdin and the kingdoms of Rheged and Strathclyde", suggesting by omission that the Selgovae didn't (these two differ on the Novantae, but the location and cultural affinity of Rheged is a bit of a mystery). Unless a scholarly reference turns up, an attempted merge risks tainting the Selgovae article with what appears to be fringe guesswork. Agricolae (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This particular string of letters has 83 Google hits, including Wikipedia and its mirrors. Utterly fails WP:V. Abductive (reasoning) 09:38, 2 February 2011 (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.