| Revision as of 22:41, 23 November 2012 editAgricolae (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,009 edits →Godulf Geoting: fix linking, add sorting← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:44, 23 November 2012 edit undoPaul Bedson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,657 edits ::'''Keep'''Next edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 22:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC) </small> | :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 22:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC) </small> | ||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 22:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC) </small> | :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 22:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC) </small> | ||
| ::'''Keep''' Geoting is described as a ] of ] in a secondary source by ]. There are three other reliable, notable secondary sources describing the primary sources that note a name in a list of our most ancient ]s. I the the field of ], Geoting is obviously notable. There is some biographical information about his ancestor coming from an island in norhtern ] of note, plus ] is notable to most. It contains five names copied from another article, including the title of the article. If you really want, you can remove those four names for the sake of argument and the article can be about Geoting and his ], but that is a very weak argument. Plenty of the existing legendary kings have far more poorly sourced content, innaccuracies and lack of biographical information but are clearly still notable. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml; font-family: Verdana;">] ❉]❉</span> 22:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:44, 23 November 2012
Godulf Geoting
- Godulf Geoting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This legendary individual has zero notability independent of the pedigree in which he appears, and all that is known about him is that he was said to be son of Geot and father of Finn. He was not a 'legendary King of Lindsey' as the page claims, nor a Legendary King of Britain - he just appears as ancestor of the God Woden, who himself is made ancestor of the line of the Lindsey kings, who are themselves completely unknown to the historical record except that they are named (and not as kings) in this one pedigree. No information appears in the pedigree except his name - no title, no biographical information. This man is not notable and never will be notable as a historical figure: there is never going to be more to say about him than that a bunch of medieval pedigrees makes him son of Geot and father of Finn, while one medieval pedigree decides to put the name Frithwulf in that place in the pedigree instead. The underlying pedigree is already discussed at Ancestry of the kings of Wessex. This is the forth page created in the past week to serve as a POV fork/COATRACK for this same information, the other three (Ancestry of the kings of Britain; Genealogia Lindisfarorum; Genealogy of the Kings of Mercia) all already being up for AfD or merger. Agricolae (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Geoting is described as a Legendary king of Lindsey in a secondary source by Frank Stenton. There are three other reliable, notable secondary sources describing the primary sources that note a name in a list of our most ancient ancestors. I the the field of genealogy, Geoting is obviously notable. There is some biographical information about his ancestor coming from an island in norhtern Germany of note, plus Noah is notable to most. It contains five names copied from another article, including the title of the article. If you really want, you can remove those four names for the sake of argument and the article can be about Geoting and his ancestry, but that is a very weak argument. Plenty of the existing legendary kings have far more poorly sourced content, innaccuracies and lack of biographical information but are clearly still notable. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)