The result was keep. Rename discussion can take place elsewhere. ( non-admin closure) TB randley 18:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC) reply
There are so many problems with this article that I cannot see how it can be fixed. First, it consists only of links to other WP articles that almost all say something completely different from this list article. Just to give one example out of many I could quote, this article says "Nicasius, Quirinus, Scubiculus, and Pientia" and gives an exact date and a place for their martyrdom - October 11, 285, Gaul. When you click on the blue link on those names it takes you to article Nicasius, Quirinus, Scubiculus, and Pientia where the lead says "Their historicity is uncertain, and "no trustworthy historical reports of [them] exist." I have checked all the links in this article, not a single article linked to actually supports the flat assertions here that "so-and-so" was a "Christian martyr killed during the reign of Diocletian" at the place and on the day given, all of these are "traditions" or legends and in many cases,as in the one above, there are serious doubts as to whether there was actually such a person at all. I asked on WP:NPOVN if users felt that this article, and one other, were neutral and the consensus was "no". I asked on WP:RSN if it was OK for this article not to quote any source except to link to other WP articles that say something completely different to the statements here and the answer was "no". I didn't need to ask at WP:NORN if it was felt that it contains original research as anyone can see that it does - on the talk page user Cynwolfe asked on 1 August 2011 "where did you get the names? How did you determine that each of these individuals was a victim of the Diocletianic Persecution?" and got the answer "Um, I googled Diocletian, persecution, and list." [ [1]]The very precise days of these supposed martyrdoms given in the article are taken by using their saints' days as the day of death, a highly dubious procedure to say the least. I cannot imagine how the year was arrived at except that somebody just made it up. The much better article Diocletianic Persecution says "Of the surviving martyrs' acts, only those of Agnes, Sebastian, Felix and Adauctus, and Marcellinus and Peter are even remotely historical", with a reference. So of these fifty or so names, there are six that may have some historical truth to them. Finally, as user Cynwolfe has noted during the discussions on WP:RSN, even the name of this article is no good, as it is a list of supposed martyrs, "and not a list of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian in boating accidents and boar hunts and street brawls. Or perhaps even executed for actual crimes".
I will stop now or this will turn into a wall of text that no one will read but if anyone wants any more information about how this article does not represent the questions of historicity it raises I will be glad to amplify. Smeat75 ( talk) 23:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Rename discussion can take place elsewhere. ( non-admin closure) TB randley 18:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC) reply
There are so many problems with this article that I cannot see how it can be fixed. First, it consists only of links to other WP articles that almost all say something completely different from this list article. Just to give one example out of many I could quote, this article says "Nicasius, Quirinus, Scubiculus, and Pientia" and gives an exact date and a place for their martyrdom - October 11, 285, Gaul. When you click on the blue link on those names it takes you to article Nicasius, Quirinus, Scubiculus, and Pientia where the lead says "Their historicity is uncertain, and "no trustworthy historical reports of [them] exist." I have checked all the links in this article, not a single article linked to actually supports the flat assertions here that "so-and-so" was a "Christian martyr killed during the reign of Diocletian" at the place and on the day given, all of these are "traditions" or legends and in many cases,as in the one above, there are serious doubts as to whether there was actually such a person at all. I asked on WP:NPOVN if users felt that this article, and one other, were neutral and the consensus was "no". I asked on WP:RSN if it was OK for this article not to quote any source except to link to other WP articles that say something completely different to the statements here and the answer was "no". I didn't need to ask at WP:NORN if it was felt that it contains original research as anyone can see that it does - on the talk page user Cynwolfe asked on 1 August 2011 "where did you get the names? How did you determine that each of these individuals was a victim of the Diocletianic Persecution?" and got the answer "Um, I googled Diocletian, persecution, and list." [ [1]]The very precise days of these supposed martyrdoms given in the article are taken by using their saints' days as the day of death, a highly dubious procedure to say the least. I cannot imagine how the year was arrived at except that somebody just made it up. The much better article Diocletianic Persecution says "Of the surviving martyrs' acts, only those of Agnes, Sebastian, Felix and Adauctus, and Marcellinus and Peter are even remotely historical", with a reference. So of these fifty or so names, there are six that may have some historical truth to them. Finally, as user Cynwolfe has noted during the discussions on WP:RSN, even the name of this article is no good, as it is a list of supposed martyrs, "and not a list of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian in boating accidents and boar hunts and street brawls. Or perhaps even executed for actual crimes".
I will stop now or this will turn into a wall of text that no one will read but if anyone wants any more information about how this article does not represent the questions of historicity it raises I will be glad to amplify. Smeat75 ( talk) 23:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC) reply