Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genealogia Lindisfarorum

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogia Lindisfarorum

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

The page is about a single genealogical pedigree found within a medieval chronicle, literally just a list of 11 successive names. (see [1]). No claim to independent notability. The page appears to have been created solely for the purpose of propagating the genealogical data on Wikipedia. Agricolae (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, unless there's evidence that the genealogical list is independently notable. The chronicle that contains the list (Chronicon ex chronicis) seems to be adequately covered at John of Worcester, and if Wikipedia really needs to list these names (I'm not saying that it does), it might be better to do so at that article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to ~~Chronicon_ex_chronicis#Chronicon_ex_chronicis~~ John_of_Worcester#Chronicon_ex_chronicis. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicon ex chronicis redirects to John of Worcester, so if it goes this way, the correct target should be John_of_Worcester#Chronicon_ex_chronicis. Agricolae (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of evidence that the list is independently notable. It is one of the oldest lists of recorded names of the leaders of our ancestors, so highly important. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 10:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John of Worcester or Kingdom of Lindsey. It is discussed in a number of sources on Google Books, but I'm not convinced there's enough detail to merit a separate article. Records from this time are extremely limited, which means you're likelier to have a bare list of names than a 12-volume historical chronicle, but kingdoms and list of kings are pretty much always notable, and we have to take what information we can get. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a list of kings as no claim is made that any of them held a title - the entire contents of the pedigree is as follows "Woden-Winta-Cretta-Queldgils-Cædbæd-Bubba-Beda-Biscop-Eanferth-Enna-Ealdfrith". Further, Genealogia Lindisfarorum isn't even a stand-alone pedigree, being nothing but a subheading in a larger multi-part pedigree entitled Incipit Regalis Prosapia Anglorum, descendens a Woden. On top of that, Worcester was just copying the names from another source (the Anglian collection) and modern scholars do not believe it reflects historical reality. There is nothing here that is worth merging, just an unoriginal list of mostly made-up names without context in a source written more than 4 centuries after the last named of them passed into oblivion. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Agricolae (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that the article on the Kingdom of Lindsey already contains the genealogical information, although it is described inaccurately, so again there is no need to merge there. Agricolae (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not independently notable. I don't think the contents should be merged to John of Worcester; we don't want to reproduce the contents of medieval manuscripts. Any notable scholarly discussions, as opposed to a reproduction of the contents, can be added to John of Worcester per the comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mike's stated the reasons very well. No independent notability, no substantive content, would require scholarly discussion to be added anywhere as without that it would be original research. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - you need scholarly articles that discuss this tiny bit of John of Worcester to establish notabilty - not an occasional mention of a name given to a section of a manuscript. And, as an aside, you realize that the "Carolus Plummer (1 February 2003). Venerabilis Baedae Historiam Ecclesiasticam Gentis Anglorum: Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England. Gorgias Press LLC. pp. 355–. ISBN 978-1-59333-028-6. Retrieved 19 November 2012" reference is just to a reprint of an original work by CHARLES PLUMMER from 1896, so it's not going to be current scholarship - no matter that someone has reprinted it in 2003. (Pet peeve alert - you should ALWAYS look at the title page and make sure something from Google Books isn't just a reprint of old scholarship.). Ealdgyth - Talk 01:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt that we need an article on one particualr genealogical tract, even one of that age. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't merge: This is just one section of a larger document. No scholarly sources have discussed this particular section in more than a passing fashion. The topic is already treated in another article, and the material presented here will be of no use in improving that article. A redirect would not be helpful as this is an extremely unlikely search term. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. I'd probably suggest the merge now too. Genealogy Lindsey, the redirect needs to go to Vespasian B VI in my opinion however as this is a distinctly ancient genealogy in that manuscript which may need an article oneday, on a different subject and substantially different to Genealogia Lindisfarorum in Chonicon ex Chronicis. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:38, 26 November 2012 (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.