Talk:Folcwald

Not in Historia Britonum
The claim that this name is mentioned in Historia Britonum is false. The closest thing I can find is a distant ancestor of the distant Hengist: "interea venerunt tres ciulae a Germania expulsae in exilio, in quibus erant Hors et Hengist, qui et ipsi fratres erant, filii Guictglis, filii Guigta, filii Guectha, filii VVoden, filii Frealaf, filii Fredulf, filii Finn, filii Fodepald, filii Geta, qui fuit, ut aiunt, filius dei. non ipse est deus deorum, amen, deus exercituum, sed unus est ab idolis eorum, quod ipsi colebant." /Pieter Kuiper 15:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is generally accepted that Fodepald is a representation of Folcwald (note that the 'p' is likely a wynn, 'ƿ', the Anglo-Saxon 'w'). That being said, is someone who is just named as father of a notable hero in two or three sources himself notable? I think this page should be merged into Finn's. 50.37.106.217 (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Just like over at Godwulf, the why and the how is enough to keep the page here. The comment by North said a lot: were these figures at some point heroes or deities in Germanic mythology or what? Only in dedicated articles can this issue be tackled. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 06:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Why is the why and how enough? Personal curiosity in the creative decisions of a bard lost in the mists of time is insufficient reason for a stand-alone page. 50.37.106.217 (talk) 07:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It's an integral aspect of these articles. They're not just names on a list: there's a history. And this isn't simply a "personal curiosity" of mine but also scholarship surrounding these figures. Nor is the inclusion of these figures on these lists necessarily a result of a "creative decision". Exactly how and why these situations develop can be compounded and complex. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * But they are just names. That is the problem.  This is not an article on the generic process by which 'these situations develop', nor the scholarship about 'these figures', but an article about one specific name, Folcwald.  Where is the body of scholarship about this person that justifies an independent page?  (A single North reference is insufficient.) In one sense I agree, though.  Such issues are integral to articles like this, but this means that when there is no such extensive discussion in the scholarly literature about a specific given individual then there is no point in having a stand-alone article about them. 50.37.108.155 (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * A redirect to Finn (Frisian) seems reasonable to me. As 50.37.108.155 says, it would make more sense to have the combined conversation in a single place. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * (Disclosure: I am the IP above) Admittedly small numbers, but two in favor of redirect, vs one opposed, so I am going do it again. Agricolae (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)