Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ælfric of Hampshire


 * 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   speedy keep. It's snowing. Nom concerns have been addressed and consensus is it's improvable and does not need deletion. StarM 12:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ælfric of Hampshire

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable. Has many google hits but they mention him, they are not about him.  §hawn poo   18:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, according to WP:BIO, sources don't have to be about him. They just mustn't be trivial mentions, and according to your nomination, this doesn't seem to be the case. The article needs some serious work, though, as it is 99 % useless as it is. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if expandable. At this date, the entire article consists of, "Ælfric of Hampshire was a late 10th century Anglo-Saxon Ealdorman of Hampshire." That is a pathetically small stub, almost seems pointless to include it. But I favor keeping stubs that something may grow from them. Ventifax (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Has a biography in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (I have added a date of death and the ODNB as a source). If he is good enough for ODNB then he's good enough for Wikipedia! :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I added a rescue tag to it.  §hawn poo   20:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tentative keep. The subject appears to meet notability criteria, but the article needs to be developed. Majoreditor (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, perhaps to something like Nobles of 11th Century England. He was a politician  senior enough to pass the notability guidelines with flying colours, but I doubt if we'll find enough about him to make a standalone article.  The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle omits him, which isn't a good sign when it comes to sourcing people from this period.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Merge if possible. --Sloane (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep First, he has a full article in the DNB--that has always been considered here proof of notability, as well as giving enough information for  a very complete WP article. There's a lot of sources other than the AS Chronicle; the dozen primary ones are listed in the DNB entry, and Google Book Search gives at least three modern secondary sources. --. And, anyway, he is in the the AS Chronicle, for 992, 1003 (a remarkably unheroic figure, by the way-see the text in Project Gutenberg for yourself, I'm not going to give a spoiler :) ), and his death in 1016.  DGG (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And that'll teach me to search for more variant spellings. Changing my not-vote to Keep, with thanks to DGG.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  08:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Marshall and DGG. Which one of you is going to turn the one-liner into an exciting account of cowardice codified for the ages? Brave, brave alderman Elfric! Drmies (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As my penance for a serious research failure, I'll work on the article.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  15:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think this could be closed now! pablo hablo. 22:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is ready to be closed as a keeper. Majoreditor (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Snow keep. Per sourcing and points shown above. -- Banj e  b oi   05:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.