Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ingild of Wessex

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 merge to Ealhmund of Kent. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ingild of Wessex

Duplicate of a page just deleted (Ingild Wessex, as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osyth Essex) for lack of notoriety. Individual is only known from two pedigrees of his great-great-great-grandson. No verifiable dates, no title, no reason to consider him notable. Agricolae (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated

likewise duplicating article Eoppa de Wessex deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osyth Essex for want of notoriety. He is the next generation down the pedigree, no dates, no title.

And:

Not previously nominated, but the same is true for him, the third generation in the pedigree. There is speculation about his marriage, but this is really speculation concerning the maternity of his son Ealhmund of Kent on whose page the issue is adequately described. Even here, Eafa is simply a bystander as the person this speculated mother would then have married. No evidence of him beyond the same pedigree, no title, no dates. All three were PRODs, contested because they were "useful", but there is no there there.

Also, for the sake of full disclosure, I recently edited these articles to remove much unverifiable material. Agricolae (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Agricolae (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Agricolae (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Comment Is merely inclusion in such a pedigree enough to convey notability (in this period). Records are scant. Is the fact of being mentioned, even if their own life wasn't notable, sufficiently unusual and thus notable, merely as a matter of interest in the history of histories, more than as a person? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ealhmund of Kent making this an expanded section on ancestry. This could satisfactorily list the whole pedigree as well as the postulated relationship to earlier kings of Kent. Since all are mere names in a pedigree about which we know nothing else, there is no point in having articles on them. The article on Ealhmund of Kent would also be better with citations as to who has expressed the views mentioned. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Peterkingiron in everything said, I just don't think there is anything to merge, as opposed to just mentioning that Eafa is made son of Eoppa, son of Ingild, brother of Ine of Wessex, as I just did in Egbert's article. I did find a critical scholarly summary of various Descent from antiquity that specifically addresses the ancestry of Ealhmund, including the issue of whether Ealhmund of Kent is the same Ealhmund in the pedigree, the speculation regarding the mother, and the possibility that the Wessex pedigree is forged to link Egbert to the former royal family - I will try to incorporate it. Agricolae (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I checked PASE and the only information other than simple genealogy that is given is Ingild's date of death, in the ASC s.a. 718. All three can be covered in another article; Ealhmund is a reasonable choice but I suppose is arguable. All three should become redirects to whichever the target is. Mike Christie (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this - I had overlooked this datum when editing Ingild's page and have added this info back. (Still not notable, just because we know when he died and who his siblings were). I have also laid groundwork on both Ealhmund and Egbert's page for the deletions, should they happen. I am a little hesitant to redirect to Ealhmund due to the possible uncertainties in identification, and because the pedigree naming them is really keyed on Egbert and Æthelwulf. It also wouldn't hurt to mention on Ine's page something like "his brother Ingild is made ancestor of later king Egbert of Wessex". Agricolae (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2008 (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.