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. No consensus to delete, but a merger might be discussed through the editorial process, and/or clean-up of the article to make the questionable historicity of this person clearer can be undertaken. Sandstein 10:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nennius of Britain[edit]

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

Contested prod, obscure fictional character. Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain is now regarded as a highly unreliable work written several centuries after the events it purports to describe, and he only appears to be a minor figure in that work. PatGallacher (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A monarch mentioned in a well-known medieval chronicle, reliable or not, is not quite an "obscure fictional character"; there are probably many (obscure) scholarly sources that discuss him. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If there are many scholarly sources which discuss him this would establish notability, but where are they? Technically, he was a prince not a monarch. Geoffrey's History is not widely read nowadays, although it was culturally significant because of its influence on the development of the Arthurian legend. PatGallacher (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this source (162–167)? (One source I found on Google Books refers to Nennius as a "co-king", but the book is by an amateur historian.) See also this old source (in the first footnote) which also discusses Geoffrey of Monmouth's invention of Nennius. (Not to be confused with Nennius the historian, referred to several times on that page.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it would help if these sources were integrated into the article to clarify notability, I find accessing Google books difficult at times. PatGallacher (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- The problem is that Geoffrey of Monmouth's work is largely not history that can be verified from any other historical source. It is much closer to being a work of fiction than of history or even of legend. It might be possible to merge this and other kings in Geoffrey's work into a single legendary kings of Britain; indeed we may have such an article, but articles on individual kings should not be allowed, because it is impossible to say anithing of them except to quote Geoffrey. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: I don't think deletion is an option for a purportedly historical figure mentioned in what was once considered a reliable work. A merge would do, though a list of legendary kings is too general, I think; perhaps to one of his (less fictional) brothers' articles? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a very time since anyone regarded Geoffrey of Monmouth as history. Some kind of summary of what he says might be legitimate. However, we cannot have a proper biography of a person on whom there is a single source, and one that is generally regarded as non-historic. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - But Nennius has been discussed from a modern aspect, as a fictional creation by Geoffrey of Monmouth: see the links I gave above. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:59, 19 January 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.