Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cadwgan Ffol


 * 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 keep. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Cadwgan Ffol

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Effectively all this article (and any sources I can find online) say about this person is that they existed. Ergo, they do not meet the general notability guideline or the biographical notability guideline. -- NotC hariza rd 🗨 02:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, United Kingdom,  and Wales.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Actually, I'm not sure we can say he existed. According to the Welsh DNB entry, we have his name attached to one (non notable) poem in one manuscript - the two other surviving versions of this poem are attributed to 1) someone else and 2) no one. This appears to be one of those cases where having an entry in the relevant national biographical dictionary does not, in fact, indicate a WP:GNG pass. -- asilvering (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This may or may not be the name of a person who wrote one poem that survives. He may have written more works, but we have no evidence of that, and even the one poem is not clear. I do not think this is enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:ANYBIO. Our guidelines say that anyone included in a dictionary of national biography is notable. Even though little is known of him, he's earned inclusion in three biographical dictionaries: the 1959 Dictionary of Welsh Biography, the 1852 Biographical Dictionary of Eminent Welshmen, and apparently another 1901 Dictionary of Welsh Biography. Weak, because there is so little to write of him, but the compilers of the dictionaries must have believed he was noteworthy. pburka (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Pburka WP:ANYBIO says people are likely to be notable if they meet those standards, not that such a person should be included in the encyclopedia every time in all cases if they do. This is all the information we are likely to ever have on this person, now or in the future. Those earlier projects were written with a degree of optimism: they were hoping, like we do, that more sources will turn up. That was over 100 years ago, and they haven't. (It's worth noting we don't actually have any clear information that he existed at all; what we have is that one person wrote this name down next to a poem once - and two other people did not write that same name down next to that poem when they copied it.) I'm trying to clarify the context here, not to argue against your vote on this basis (he indisputably does meet WP:ANYBIO), since basically what we have is the philosophical question of: does Wikipedia contain articles about people who may never have existed, about whom all anyone is ever likely to know makes up less than a paragraph, if that person has been "noticed" by the editors of a DNB? -- asilvering (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that we'll never have more to write of him, but I don't think that's really important. We know almost nothing of Aristodama, either, but we do know that she was greatly esteemed, and permastubs aren't harmful. The major difference between Aristodama and Cadwgan Ffol is that the former was recognized by her contemporaries, whereas Cadwgan was only recognized much later, by people who knew no more of him than do we (thus my weak conviction). However, for me, the guiding principal is that Wikipedia delegates notability decisions to independent experts (who publish in reliable sources or award major honors or prizes). If these experts have deemed the poet worthy of entries in three DNBs, I'm inclined to defer to them. pburka (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with that argument is that people who may never have existed can still be notable, as User:Pburka put so well. Atchom (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:ANYBIO or indeed WP:BASIC, and what the last voter said. We have tons of articles on ancient writers of dubious existence and other assorted (possibly) fictional personages. Whether they existed or not is not the question; the question is whether they are covered adequately by secondary literature. They are here, and so case closed. Atchom (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For examples, see Category:People whose existence is disputed. pburka (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2022 (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.