Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceolwulf 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   keep. (non-admin closure)  Jay  Jay What did I do? 02:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ceolwulf of Wessex

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable name in a register. No evidence of existence. Le Cheffre (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep that's about as hard as it gets for written sources from that time. Having a register entry is already pretty good. What it needs is the actual sources though. Edit: just checked the German version of the page: that one has literature and sources. As a newbie: would it be ok to transfer those over?Gmkeros (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. You need to make sure you attribute it correctly but that's not difficult. See Copying within Wikipedia for details. Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is inappropriate to just copy references from a different Wikipedia, unless you have actually seen the book or journal or website and verified that the reference exists and that it verifies the content for which it is a citation. Many fictitious references have been cited, or actual reliable sources have incorrectly been claimed to verify mistaken or hoax text in Wikipedia articles. And no Wikipedia article is itself a reliable source. Edison (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  19:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  19:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  19:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Gmkeros. Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Gmkeros. ö   Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  20:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * keep "It's not notable because it's not notable" is no good rationale for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Oxford DNB entry: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/57052 Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with Andy's and Barney's comments above. David J Johnson (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. A king and a DNB entry. Clear keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but improve by adding the references from the article on the family tree of the Kings of Wessex.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep A King of Wessex with an entry in the DNB. Obviously more than just a "name in a register". Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have added text and references, which I hope meet Le Cheffre's concerns. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is part of history!! Thank God consesus exists here!! – →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  00:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -- He was a king of Wessex. I agree that we know little about him, but we have articles on much more obscure figures from that period.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gmkeros. — Joaquin008  ( talk ) 21:18, 3 May 2013 (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.