Bataireacht: A remarkable number of those hits seem to include the words "making a comeback", and all date to October 2022.  The article is extremely poorly referenced, and I'm almost in agreement with others on the Talk page that it's little more than a hoax.  Much seems to have been written by JohnWHurley - who seems to also be the author of The Shillelagh Makers Handbook and Shillelagh: The Irish Fighting Stick , two books - both self-published - which had been the main references, along with a blog, irishstick.wordpress.com.  A breach of WP:NOADS and WP:COI .  Hurley also appears to have edited with another account, Shillelaghman123 - see history of Irish martial arts .  There is only a single reference dating from the 21st century, and three of the seven references, total, are about the word "shillelagh", not the article subject.  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  17:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , History , Sports , Martial arts ,  and Ireland .  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  17:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I'm seeing this BBC article , this book from 2001 , and this paper without much effort.  Whilst I hear the problem with COI editing, it seems to me highly likely that sources exist that meet the GNG.  JMWt ( talk ) 17:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: for some reason the BBC weblink is not working, I haven't seen that before - no idea why.  JMWt ( talk ) 17:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] JMWt .  It's because you've got pipes in those links.  EL format is [https://www.bbc.com/ BBC article] rather than [https://www.bbc.com/ | BBC article] .  Guliolopez ( talk ) 18:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, I've fixed.  And sorry for messing it up. .  JMWt ( talk ) 18:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it's that October 2022 BBC Travel article that seems to have been widely copied and used as the basis for dozens of other article over the next few weeks.  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  18:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well it's an RS.  The other two sources I linked to above are nothing to do with the BBC article and were published beforehand JMWt ( talk ) 18:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - looks to just pass GNG.  -- MartyTheArty ( talk ) 19:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi. Could you expand a little please? Otherwise your contribution looks, for all the world, like a verbatim example from WP:ATA ( WP:ITSNOTABLE )? Guliolopez ( talk ) 17:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the solid refs JMWt found about this Irish martial art. Of course the Irish know how to fight -- I could have told you that!
 JMWt, can you add those refs to the article?
 -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Done but article needs further tidying and the refs might not be in the best place JMWt ( talk ) 07:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] JMWt , you've certainly done more than I do during an Afd. I just stick new refs I find at the bottom then put a {{ Inline }} template at the top. So thank you very much! ::-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 07:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Um, the Irish know how to fight?  I guess we do?  In the 1700s and 1800s, it was with pikes .  In the 1900s, it was rifles, car bombs , and Semtex .  In the 2000s, it's been handguns , pipe bombs and, well, just knives.  It's never been shillelaghs.  As a martial art.  Secretly handed down from father to son, lost, and now resurrected via... /checks notes... newspaper and magazine articles, and court documents...  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  10:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Bastun , I apologize for thoughtlessly insulting you and slandering the Irish people.  On this side of the Atlantic, "Fighting Irish" is just a cheerful meme - the Notre Dame Fighting Irish or even the names of my predominantly Irish-American Catholic parochial school's teams.  It was clueless and insensitive to overlook the real pain the people of Ireland have experienced.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Shillelagh as suggested by others. I still believe this topic is notable but it's more appropriate to include this material in the other article. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : When you're looking for references, you can't just search for a term and throw it into the article, hoping it sticks.  Please also AGF and give me some credit for having already done WP:BEFORE .  The BBC Travel article is dubious, but I'll leave it.  However, I've removed the Historical Archaeology reference.  It makes literally one mention of "bataireacht", says what it is supposed to be, and that's cited to Hurley's 2007 self-published book - which isn't a reliable source.  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  11:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Excuse me.  The BBC article is a Reliable Source.  A published academic paper on the topic is a Reliable Source.  A book published on the topic is a Reliable Source.  If you've got issues with these, the correct way to deal with them is to discuss it on the page or on WP:RSN .  The wrong thing to do is to start a fight because people are adding sources that you don't happen to like.  The whole purpose of the WP:GNG and WP:RS is that we reflect how other sources have treated the subject not that we make the page say whatever we want it to say.  The fact is that independent third party reliable sources have covered the topic.  JMWt ( talk ) 14:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not starting a fight, I'm pointing out that a 24-page academic paper mentions the term "bataireacht" once , and uses a citation for that inclusion that goes back to Hurley's self-published book.  Maybe self-published books by people trying to create a mystique or pseudo-history around a (re?)invented martial art are deemed reliable by that journal's editorial board, but they're not RS by Wikipedia standards.  (See WP:SPS )  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  15:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not contining to argue with you in two venues.  A published paper is a Reliable Source.  I understand that you think the topic is a fake, but ultimately it isn't up to you.  We reflect the published sources.  The end.  JMWt ( talk ) 15:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  While I'm (currently) slow to make a recommendation on the veracity or notability of the topic, I would note that it is absolutely the case that this article was created by the same person who wrote the main book/works on which it is based.  (I refer, for consideration, this exchange from 15 years ago .)  That the secondary sources (Hurley's book) and tertiary sources (the BBC piece) and this Wikipedia article are somewhat "self-referencing"/"self-supporting" (cyclical) is pretty clear.  I mean, Hurley started this article at the same time he was writing his book(s) .  This, IMO, raises at least a few WP:NEO concerns.  If this article is retained as a standalone topic, the WP:CFORK overlaps with (not least) the shillelagh article would ideally be addressed...  Guliolopez ( talk ) 17:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A merge to Shillelagh might be an option.  Interesting that the BBC article used on that page doesn't use the word bataireacht once, and a practitioner acknowledges "most people think it is a joke." :-) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  17:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems like you are merging two different complaints here.  First there are the COI issues which are not a reason to delete - and frankly would only affect the 'history' section given there are plenty of people and a good number of sources now to say it is a thing (even if someone recently made it all up).  Even there, I think it is a weak argument as I've independently found sources going back to the 19 century regarding rules for Shillelagh fighting.  Then there's the issue about the name - which again seems like a non-starter as  a) it is Irish for 'stick fighting' and  b) we have recent sources that use the word.  Third there is the question of WP:CFORK which would appear to be fairly easily solved by participants in the pages, given that Shillelagh appears to refer to the stick and this page appears to refer to movements in the fight.  In essence, I don't accept your premise.  Someone wrote a book and other people quoted and included the book as a source for other media - ok.  That's how it works - it has been noted in other media.  Even if the original was made up or exaggerated, it can't now be a fake given that we have sources showing people doing it.  An investigation as to whether all the people interviewed in all the sources (including some others I've found but not included) are actors for the journalists concerned is clearly outwith of the role of Wikipedia editors.  And to be honest, even if it is all fake, even that's not a reason to delete the page.  Write a book with your extensive research showing how it is all a load of bunk and then we can include it as a source.  JMWt ( talk ) 18:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Shillelagh#History .  I've stayed on the fence a bit.  Mainly to give myself time to read and consider the comments from those advocating a "keep" (and to review the sources noted in those !votes - such as the this BBC article , the passing mention in this book , and single mention in this paper ).  And, having reviewed, I'm not seeing that the subject has significant independent coverage to warrant a standalone article.  Certainly those 3x sources are not what I'd call WP:SIGNFICIANTCOVERAGE .  In all honesty it seems that the term itself is something of a WP:NEOLOGISM - not having much use beyond the works of the same person who wrote the article.  And the topic (fighting with sticks in Ireland) inexorably overlaps with the topic of fighting with sticks generally (already its own article) and the topic of fighting sticks in Ireland (already its own article).  The modern resurgent/reinvention practice, as discussed in the BBC article for example, could readily be covered in the Shillelagh#History or Shillelagh#Modern usage sections.  And wouldn't seem to be subject of sufficient coverage to warrant a stand-along article (not based on the limited coverage at any rate....) Guliolopez ( talk ) 16:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Shillelagh , various sections, mostly History - as above, and my own searches.   The term does seem to be a neologism, and that's after I trawled through some 19th century materials, and it is not at all clear that there was any structured sport of that name, or even in that area.  Rather it looks like a freshly-defined structuring of something people did, with a label attached.  Some passed down within some families, including a branch of the Doyles (one of the 10 largest name groups in Ireland, but only one small branch, in Canada, claims this carrying of this martial art) and the mentioned scholar, Hurley.  In such an event, and with apparent sources in fact apparently mostly echoing one BBC item, and a couple of self-published books, we may be WP:TOOSOON - perhaps some day, this will be a full-scale sport.  After all, whatever about ancient hurling, Gaelic football, now massive, was largely developed as a formal sport in the relatively recent past.  But for now, Merge...  Unless someone can get hold of the books by Hurley, and follow up their underlying references, if available.  SeoR ( talk ) 01:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I got hold of one of Hurley's books as an e-book, and I have to say, it's well-referenced, from a range of sources (mostly not academic, but still...).  Its focus is on "Irish stick fighting" and it makes a convincing case that by, at latest, the 16th century, there were several structured styles of stick-fighting used by Irish practitioners, many at least part-based on fencing forms.  I remain of the opinion that this article should be merged into Shillelagh, but I do see grounds for a solid section in that article on "Irish stick fighting".  One positive in reading the book was that the author himself is quite clear that much of modern martial arts "history" is dubious, and that there is little real evidence for widespread survival of any legacy Irish stick fighting forms - but his historical survey is persuasive, and while attempts at reconstructing 16th-18th century fighting styles are  of course somewhat speculative, there is a clear basis present.  SeoR ( talk ) 01:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : As an Irish former university history student, this looks doubtful.  Admittedly, my view may be based on cavities in my studies, however it's also true that this apparent neologism does not robustly pass the smell test.  If bataireacht was a genuine thing, it has an extremely low profile in modern folk memory, to the point of obscurity.  The claims of recent practice in the Modern practice section are entirely unverified by any references.  Franky, I don't believe them.  It has been suggested that the article be merged with shillelagh .  If consensus emerges to keep it, it could with equal validity be merged into the singlestick article.  Proceed with caution: the bataireacht proposal has a case to prove to justify the article's survival.  Spideog ( talk ) 20:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Shillelagh , per Guliolopez and SeoR, rather than my original proposal to delete.  Merging seems the better option, and if 'bataireacht' does become more prominent at some future point, it can be split.  (I've struck my earlier Merge comment, so as not to be double-counted).  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  20:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see what earlier participants who supported Keeping this article think of the Merge suggestion to Shillelagh .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : also a one paragraph discussion here [21] , seems to at least be a "thing".  Should be just barely at GNG.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I suspect that that Sun piece was researched by reading Wikipedia, and this is more circularity.  Uncle G ( talk ) 18:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What a totally inside-out way to approach a topic!   We don't have the Irish faction fights , which is exhaustively covered in sources that  (a) mention that it was done with far more than sticks and  (b) don't describe it as a martial art, but we do have this?   Based upon a thesis propounded via Lulu.com books ?  The subject of the Irish faction fights makes up the meat of this article, even before it was recently pared down.   One of the books even cited here is about the faction fights, and it has been carefully cherry picked to be about sticks (and not give a page number), since the book goes on to talk about swords, spears, sawn-off shotguns, and robbing soldiers for their weaponry in the Caravat and Shanavest fights (on page 88).   This has been copied and pasted into Irish martial arts as well.   So much effort put into a single author's 21st century re-invention and self-publication using Lulu.com and Wikipedia, and no effort into the things that are in the history books.   Yes, this should redirect, as above, and a lot of this seems to be misrepresenting the faction fight sources, so I don't support a merger of the content.  Uncle G ( talk ) 18:12, 24 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge