Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Forbadil

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 Speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St Forbadil

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

The page appears to be a long-lived hoax. No reliable sources exist for this supposed saint. The last reference named on the page, the supposed book St Forbadil: Forgotten Bishop of the Mercians, appears to not exist at all; it generates no Google results apart from this page. Other details, like the supposed term "Forbadilian" and the subject's supposed connection to Alfred Jarry, likewise have zero support. It's possible that the page was created to support a brewery. Calamondin12 (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of independent source coverage of this saint I could find (much less independent reliable source coverage). Everymorning (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above - looks like a 'legend' created to give 'history' to a small brewery. I wish the brewery luck, but we are not here to help them sell beer. As to "It was one of the words that Dr. Samuel Johnson omitted from his dictionary of 1755", he also omitted squinglehaft, crindle, and juntor. I wonder why? Peridon (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I note it is also nominated for speedy. The list of Bishops of Lichfield (alias of the Mercians - and in which he ought to appear) is not necessarily complete, but that is part of the general dearth of local sources on Mercia and is not a reflection on the completeness of that article. We know about the Synod of Whitby primarily from Bede and the life of St Wilfrid. There just are no more sources. The chances of anyone coming up with new authentic material on a "forgotten" bishop is unlikely to say the least. His appearance as bishop of the Mercians at the Synod of Whitby is not credible. It is possible there was a Celtic Church surviving in parts of West Mercia, but we know absolutely nothing of it. If the alleged book existed, I would expect it to be advertised on Amazon or other book sales websites; but it is not. The whole thing stinks of invention or fiction, which we call WP:HOAX AND WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While paper references are good, I'm always suspicious when they are the only sources for something that looks dubious anyway. I saw this at CSD, but didn't delete it as (for me) it wasn't blatant enough. But I didn't decline it either... Peridon (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2016 (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.