Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryn Goblin

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ryn Goblin was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE (discounting sockpuppet votes)

Zero Google hits except for Wikipedia and its mirrors. RickK 22:10, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • Origen was not really into goblins. More into demons. Delete. JFW | T@lk 03:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Unbelievable! Origen wasn't really into England, either, or Wicca. This is a fiction from some pyretic noggin. Delete. Geogre 04:46, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep The reference to Origen makes it clear that it is 'apocryphal' hence of questionable authenticity. Of course Origen had nothing to do with England or Wicca. It is the legend which refers to Origen, not the other way round. Perhaps editing to clarify this is required. --NijinskyDiaghilev 19:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Hello Wikipedians. As the author of this article I would like to defend it. I first encountered the myth studying for my PhD. I was intrigued primarily because it was so obscure and it made me chuckle, and also because working in Cambridge I have had the opportunity to visit Bedford on numerous occasions. I have attemtpted to collect what I have learnt here. There are several books which mention the Ryn Goblin. Most are historical texts not currently in print but should still be available on request from Cambridge University Library. Also I am a bit offended at being referred to as a 'pyretic noggin' (although some of my students might agree!). "Googling" is not the same as research. It has been a while but I will attempt to get the names of the sources I used. In the mean time I am happy for the article to be temporarily shelved if necessary but I would prefer it to be kept. --Mjh 18:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Author of Ryn Goblin -- may I call you AORG for short? -- I recommend, if you're serious, to get a username; then your votes can be counted and you can "temporarily shelve" articles you're working on on your user page. Taking you at face value that you're who you say you are, please don't be offended by the "pyretic noggin" comment; if you have students, just think about them for a while. Think of the juvenile pranks that they play every year, each new class thinking that this is most ingenious thing ever and marks them just so wonderfully cool and none of them realizes that every new class of students pulls the same tired jokes. That's why, when we read of a supposedly ancient legend that doesn't get mentioned anywhere on the Web, not even those pages that specialize in obscure ancient legends, and the author provides no hints at where or how this information could be verified, we suspect pranks. Because they happen with tiresome regularity. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:07, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As the author of the "pyretic noggin" comment, I commend you, Antaeus, for explaining well how it came about. Geogre 22:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I have a username now, but AORG is lovely. Perhaps I will change my username. Thank you Antaeus. I share your views on the article and would like to change my vote to abstain. I am surprised that there are no other references to the myth on the internet. I have been fortunate enough to be able to speak to Bedford residents who have come across it (admittedly they tend to be older rather than younger). It would be a shame for knowledge of the legend to die out. Which websites do you use that specialise in 'ancient legends'? When I did my PhD we didn't have access to the web.--Mjh 19:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • AORG, give us a citation from Origen, please, or at least name the work in which he makes the reference. Additionally, if you have found this material in multiple places, indicate them somewhat in your article. All of that sets the speculative above the prankish. Further, while English folklore has many pookahs, pixies, brownies, and the like, using the term "goblin" is a different class altogether. You would do well to establish why the folks of Bedford thought they were seeing demons, rather than just sprites, and when this happened and where it was recorded. Lots of theologians speculated on classifications of the hosts. Part of the Great Chain of Being is that there is an infinite plenitude of life and that every station must be filled. As the gap between man and God is infinite and the gap between man and Satan is infinite, so there must be creatures who fill every niche. Thus rank upon rank of angel. They then speculated on rank upon rank of demonic being. Going from this speculation to saying that the critters are real, that they migrated, etc., puts you off in another world altogether, and one that doesn't look very scholarly. If you got your doctorate, then you know that there is one rule: cite. Geogre 22:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your concern Geogre and agree with you completely. Until I have put my citations up I am happy for it to be deleted. It is highly unlikely that Origen actually wrote anything about a goblin. As stated in the article this is a later addition to the myth, which most likely can be traced to Icelandic folklore. As myths develop they tend to reach back in time for the sake of credibility. It is indeed surprising that someone along the way chose to refer back to Origen of all people. It is also unclear as to why the theme of Christianity came to prominence in what was essentially a non-Christian folk tale. As regards my doctorate, I didn't get it. I was forced to pull out in my final year for personal/family reasons. However, I subsequently began a medical degree, so I am now a doctor of rather a different sort. And in medicine the same rule applies to any information: Cite. The article will be removed.--Mjh 01:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I have cut the text of the article and pasted it onto my user page as instructed. Thank you all for your comments and advice, but above all for your time.--Mjh 02:54, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit new to this but thought I really had to vote here. I'm a

doctor working in Bedford - some of the patients I've encountered have mentioned this story b4 but I have never known anything of its origins until I found the link to this article from the Bedford page. If anything I would like more info. It must be kept in. --Abid 12:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    • Well, if you can provide any sort of verifiable reference, that'd be enough for me to change my vote to Keep. I'm no expert on folklore but this is the sort of thing I love. This seems to be a pretty localized belief; have any of the newspapers that serve the region perhaps done a piece on the Ryn Goblin? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm going to abstain for now, but I restored the content of the article, which I feel should be kept for consideration until the vfd is complete. --L33tminion | (talk) 19:56, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ryn_Goblin&oldid=357569491"