Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godulf Geoting


 * 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   redirect to Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies.  MBisanz  talk 02:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Godulf Geoting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This legendary individual has zero notability independent of the pedigree in which he appears, and all that is known about him is that he was said to be son of Geot and father of Finn. He was not a 'legendary King of Lindsey' as the page claims, nor a Legendary King of Britain - he just appears as ancestor of the God Woden, who himself is made ancestor of the line of the Lindsey kings, who are themselves completely unknown to the historical record except that they are named (and not as kings) in this one pedigree. No information appears in the pedigree except his name - no title, no biographical information. This man is not notable and never will be notable as a historical figure: there is never going to be more to say about him than that a bunch of medieval pedigrees makes him son of Geot and father of Finn, while one medieval pedigree decides to put the name Folcwald in that place in the pedigree instead. The underlying pedigree is already discussed at Ancestry of the kings of Wessex. This is the forth page created in the past week to serve as a POV fork/COATRACK for this same information, the other three (Ancestry of the kings of Britain; Genealogia Lindisfarorum; Genealogy of the Kings of Mercia) all already being up for AfD or merger. Agricolae (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Geoting is described as a Legendary king of Lindsey in a secondary source by Frank Stenton. There are three other reliable, notable secondary sources describing the primary sources that note a name in a list of our most ancient ancestors. In the the field of genealogy, Geoting is obviously notable. There is some biographical information about his ancestor coming from an island off northern Germany of note, plus Noah is notable to most. It contains five names copied from another article, including the title of the article. If you really want, you can remove those four names for the sake of argument and the article can be about Geoting and his ancestry, but that is a very weak argument. Plenty of the existing legendary kings have far more poorly sourced content, innaccuracies and lack of biographical information but are clearly still notable. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 22:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Stenton says of him, ". . . the ninth-century text carries the descent beyond Woden through a set of mythological names to Godulf Geoting, . . . " and "the list runs . . . Godulf Geoting. With the five names beyond Woden this paper is not directly concerned." Godulf is a mythological name that Stenton will not discuss further. That's it.  In the field of genealogy, Godulf is just another name appearing among a lot of other names in just another invented pedigree.  There is nothing notable about him whatsoever, unlike his supposed father Geat or his supposed son Finn, both of which are remembered in Anglo-Saxon pseudo-historical material. The notability of Noah has exactly nothing to do with the notability of Godulf. Agricolae (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable subject about whom absolutely nothing is mentioned in the reliable sources except that his name appears as a legenday figure in an obscure geneology. ZERO sources exist to expand the content of this article beyond a single sentence. Also a POV fork and content fork serving as a coatrack for the creator's OR and synth, the fourth such article created in the space of a week to make a WP:POINT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment British mythology is not non-notable. I'm only trying to give a bit of the importance of descent back and genealogy falling within an auxilliary science of history should be something we're including, even if I am short on legendary facts. I might be able to find some stuff to compare with the Goths and Beowulf, I'll keep working on it. Point being, compare to just a tiny bit of what India has about fairy tales they made up:


 * Delete - The important point here is this search on Google scholar which shows absolutely no scholarly sources for this information. Even a search for plain "Godulf" since 1950 only shows a page and a half of entries - some of which are obviously not relevant and the others which appear to only show the name mentioned as a "name in a pedigree" - if there is no scholarly discussion of this name, then there is no notability. The 1921 Chambers Beowulf "source" only lists Godulf as a name in a pedigree - there is NO discussion of him at all. All of the available sources in the article itself just are passing mentions - no in depth discussion of the person at all. Without secondary sources, we have no notability. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps you missed the bits about the line coming from Noah and the bit about the German Island. Not much, but more than Cynewald for instance, who should by this logic also be getting the delete treatment. I've got another one coming about Geoting having a "son" called Finn and there may well be more info in secondary sources. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 23:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are three critical flaws with this argument. 1) The same collection of pedigrees make Cynewald a descendant of Godulf and everyone in this part of his pedigree, so there is not more information for Godulf than for Cynewald - if descending from people from a German Island established notability, they would both have it, as would be the case for a descent from Noah. 2) notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so even if he 'comes from Noah', so what? 3) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a flawed argument for retaining a page. You are right, Cynewald's page should be deleted - that is no argument for retaining this page. Agricolae (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree and see what people think about the value of their past. I'll vote keep on Cynewald incidentally as he is notable in the field of genealogy too. Added two more gems of notability for you to deal with. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 23:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep making this groundless claim. As a historical entity, a person is not notable in the field of genealogy unless they have been subject to multiple genealogical studies or have been highlighted by multiple authors as some sort of genealogical nexus, and certainly not by being just another name in just another pedigree, as is the case with both of these individuals. As to the 'two more gems', they are glass - nice and shiny but valueless. One is just recapitulating the pedigree that is our sole source for this genealogical entity.  The other is giving the well-known Anglo-Saxon naming elements that the name is comprised of, adding no more to notability than someone discussing the origin of the name Gwendolyn makes anyone ever named Gwendolyn notable.  Agricolae (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable, no sources with scholarly discussion of this name as opposed to the list of names.  Paul, your article creation in this area is starting to become disruptive to others working on these topics.  Please stop and get consensus before you next create an article in this area. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It is notable in the field of genealogy as well worn, tired and pointed out. I'll let everyone decide whether that's suitable for Wikipedia or not. I'll try and refrain from more genealogy articles and find something else to play with while it gets sorted out. Incidentally though, have you read The Neverending Story? Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 01:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that the age of the argument or its wear is as relevant as how it stacks up against the counter argument. The argument for non notability is on the table.  The counter argument is . . . What is the counter argument?  The notability of this individual to the field of genealogy has been stated as an established fact, as if it were self-evident that this was the case.  What criteria would one use to evaluate notability to the field of genealogy that would result in the conclusion that this particular name in a pedigree is notable?


 * I have made the counter argument. There are already articles about non-notable "names in lists" sitting around here all over the place in a far worse condition than this page. The point is that they are highly notable lists with highly notable names. Especially in this case as Godulf is at the end of a line, making him an important original dynast who could have been the basis for all sorts of myths and legends, from Beowulf to Falkore, the luck dragon in The Neverending Story. He should be kept to help foster our children's dreams, imaginations and inclinations towards entitlement to encourage ambition. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 12:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So, the lead argument for the fact that he is notable to the field of genealogy is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, an argument explicitly listed as invalid? Further, the field of genealogy is independent of Wikipedia, so the fact that other random people in pedigrees have Wikipedia pages cannot possibly establish notability to the field of genealogy.  A name chosen at random from a highly notable list is still a random name. In terms of being important for Beowulf or any of the other books you mention, that is not even original research - you just made it up.  You don't keep Wikipedia articles for WP:SOAPBOX reasons either. Agricolae (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

For those that haven't seen the film. Paul Bedson ❉ talk ❉ 13:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * God save the King. Godulf Geoting is not only notable in the field of genealogy. As I have been trying to explain in some other discusssions, he is notable in other fields that I have brought into discussion on this page that can be further researched. For instance, the island Godulf's ancestors came from, this is notable in Geography and Ethnography. Hector Munro Chadwick has suggested a possible name of this island Oghgul, and mentioned migrations through other islands; "Tanet in the British language Ruoihin". This place probably needs an notable article to itself. The fact that someone noted his name is a combination of God and Wolf also is notable in linguistics and philology. These are all auxilliary sciences of history that can tell us about our past. Geoting qualifies in several fields as illustrated and I will endeavour to find more. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 14:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Godolf has been largely ignored by the field of genealogy, mentioned only in passing to dismiss him as having been made up along with the most of the other names in the list. That the island his ancestors supposedly came from is notable tells us nothing about him.  Just think about it - Britain is notable.  By this argument everyone in the world who had ancestors from Britain is notable.  Membership in a group, in this case people whose ancestors came from that island, does not render one notable - WP:NOTINHERITED.  No, the fact that someone noted the origin of the name does not make everyone with the name magically notable to linguistics.  Godulf has absolutely no claim to notability - none whatsoever. Agricolae (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hector has pointed out his notability in history. As well as Beaw Sceldweaing and the whole dang caboodle of British mythology, for the reasons mentioned above. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 17:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see the WP:Notability (people) where it makes it clear that to be notable, "he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources" - subject, not just mentioned in passing but the actual subject of the study.  Godulf as just a name in a pedigree, does not qualify. Further, Hector Munro Chadwick, to whom you are clearly referring even though you have linked a Trojan hero (knock it off with the goofball Wikilinks - linking the obscure name from a pedigree to the entirely irrelevant J.R. Ewing is both childish and trivializes the process here), says that someone familiar with Finn (Frisian) son of Folcwalda has become confused and substituted the name Folcwalda for that of Godulf.  There is no justification for the level of dishonesty entailed in spinning this as "point[ing] out [Godwulf's] notability in history". Agricolae (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The name Ewing sounded similar linguistically to Sceldweaing, so I chose the closest notable link I could find to save another red link. Sorry if it seems a bit goofball to mention a Trojan hero at this point, but what Hector Munro Chadwick says is just the type of muse that writers and authors about legendary kings through the centuries would have taken from the names in Vespasian B Vi (Lindsey). Godulf Geoting passes notability general guidelines on "Any biography" through point 2) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Godulf is a legendary king that has been part of the enduring historical record (of legendary kings at the very least) for at least twelve centuries now. He was probably more widely recognized before that. I could probably also argue for notability under "People notable for only one event" - being a legendary ancestor of a whole load of people. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 23:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, now you are just making things up. He never existed.  He made no contribution to anything.  He never existed. Some genealogist in the distant past decided that the name Godulf should go in his pedigree of the king of Lindsey as father of Finn and son of Geat. He never existed. Just getting your legendary wife pregnant with a legendary child is not a contribution to a field.  Other than relieving the writers' block of the genealogist this non-person accomplished nothing, made no contribution, because he never existed.  You also need to read WP:ONEEVENT again - all it says is that someone known only for one event may not merit a page of their own.  It doesn't day that if you can invent an 'event' for a person (or in this case, a name in a pedigree that was never a person) they are automatically notable. Agricolae (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment These technical issues are being heavily discussed at Talk:Godulf Geoting. As a note to closing admin, I would request a copy of the talk discussion pasted here for future reference. Thanks. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 18:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest Redirect to Godulf I've done a lot of work on the article after extensive discussions and come up with this redirect as the best I can suggest. Following example of "The Full Wiki" to keep up with competition. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 01:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Godulf is itself a redirect - you never redirect to a redirect. Agricolae (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The article has now been almostly entirely written with factually innacurate, assumptive material by the editor suggesting the article's deletion. I now vote we rip up this literary forgery and start again with my version. Technically according to the majority of sources, being the son of Geata Tætwaing, I should have called the article Godulf Geating in any case. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 19:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Paul has demonstrated he understands the source material well enough for this to be an appropriate close. The article should simply be deleted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Agricolae has mentioned any source material. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 19:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Such dishonesty is unbecoming and unproductive. Agricolae (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I'll get back looking for your page numbers and books later. In the meantime, I've come up with a solution. REDIRECT Langfedgetal (for now). Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 21:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (And so begins the next attempt to COATRACK the information into yet another page). This is not an appropriate place to redirect Godulf Goeting as anybody looking for this name from Anglo-Saxon genealogical pseudo-history (or more appropriately, pseudo-genealogy) will not be wanting to go to a page about a late Icelandic family tree. Who am I kidding? - there is little likelihood that anyone is ever going to search for Godulf Geoting. Agricolae (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As does the unreasonably deletion of sourced text linked with a sourced article comparing them on that page. So we can't REDIRECT there. I've tried putting the original text of the genealogies, but Agricolae deleted this as misleading. I've disputed the factual accuracy of the article there and raised a discussion so that Agricolae can explain to us all why original text is misleading. We can REDIRECT Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies when that's been cleared up. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 22:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The original names can be found in the Genealogies of the Anglian collection and Anglo-Saxon chronicle.WartonPrice1871 Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 22:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Figure doesn't appear to be notable; I can find no secondary sources that concentrate on him as a distinct subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2012 (UT
 * Comment In reply to an unanswered question on the deleted Ancestry of the kings of Britain page, I'd like to add a reply to a sourced discussion there relevant to this topic's content -


 * I apologise for not noticing Ealdglyth's sourced argument and have found her comments exceptionally useful and would like to take the opportunity to thank her for her input. As refreshing as it is to get a sourced argument, Stenton said ""With the six names beyond Woden this paper is not directly concerned." I also have to say that the source has been misread because the source says "With the five names beyond Woden this paper is not directly concerned.", and no Geat is mentioned in the text. Perhaps you have a different version, but here is mine, the text I am speaking of exists at the bottom of page 127 -

At the risk of sounding repetetive to prove a point, but name number 6 is not the Name of God.

There is no number six in Stenton's list.

The philological importance of the "-ing" ending is massive also as place names such as Birmingham and Nottingham show (Stenton again, but different source). This is fascinating info for the millions of British people living in these cities and towns.

here's another original source using the correct terminology in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle sources:

and here is a third source to put a version of Bede on top of it, clearly stating difference between Geata Taetwaing and Geat:

I continue to repeat my argument that the "appellatives of God" (if you are not happy with Richard Price calling these names "their deities") at the end of a mythological dynasty of England are all of massive notability, significant impact on history, etc. and deserve significant coverage, which can be found in this article's history. Paul Bedson ❉ talk ❉ 20:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I very carefully gave a full citation for the information - it comes from a different collected work. Did you not read that citation I gave? Here it is again - . The specific quotes come from p. 137, with the discussion on the various names taking part on the following pages. I did not "misread" my source .. I have a different (and earlier) edition. And again ... what Stenton says there is "In it's ninth-century form, the list runs Aldfrið Eatting Eatta Eanferðing Eanferð Biscoping Biscop Beding Beda Bubbing Bubba Cadbæding Cædbæd Cueldgilsing Cueldgils Cretting Cretta Uinting Uinta Wodning Uuoden Frealafing Frealaf Frioðulfing Fioðulf Finning Finn Gofuulfing Godulf Geoting. With the six names beyond Woden this paper is not directly concerned. It may, however, be observed that every other genealogy in Sweet's text ends with Frealaf, the father of Woden." Note that Stenton does NOT use the archaic spelling of the manuscript (which he has transcribed in his long list of names) through the rest of the article. If "six" later became "five" (which I don't doubt is possible, six is probably a typo there) ... that means that the names "beyond Woden" would be " Frealfaf Frioðulfing Fioðulf Finning Fin Gofuulfing Godulf Geoting" - that's "four" people explicitly - "Frealaf son of Fioðulf", "Fioðulf son of Finn" "Finn son of Godulf" "Godulf son of Geot". Note, however, that there are FIVE names mentioned - as "Geot" is definitely included there. This is just basic knowledge in the field .. of how to read manuscript forms and what they mean. That's why we use secondary sources and why it's dangerous to assume too much. And it's worth noting that Stenton never again mentions these two people - Godulf or Geot throughout the rest of the paper. In fact, he says of the ninth-century text which mentions Godulf and the more common list given in Florence of Worcester that "The only material difference between the two lists is that while the ninth-century text carries the descent beyond Woden through a set of mythological names to Godulf Geoting, Woden stands at the head of the pedigree given by Florence. So far as they relate to times which may be regarded as historical, there is no discrepancy between the lists." It's quite clear that Stenton regards this expanded list which contains Godulf as "mythological" and not historical. Since there is no serious treatment of these names in modern secondary works - they clearly fail notability.


 * Readers are welcome to compare sources, and find the final stairway to heaven over at Langfedgetal, where the full list of the Names of god can be found deleted in the article history, with the original manuscript sources, cited with secondary sources, and sealed. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 21:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And also feel free to evaluate the extent of serious treatment of these names in the history of this article, there is loads, from mention by the author of Lord of the Rings, to serious, important philological discussion and the part the figure of Godulf and the name Geating has played inspiring literature from Snorri Sturlson to Frodo Baggins. I am sure I can find plenty more too. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 21:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence whatsoever that Godulf inspired anyone (except, perhaps, one Wikipedia editor). As to Lord of the Rings, Tolkien was a respected Anglo-Saxon linguist who also wrote some popular fantasy books.  For the purposes of this discussion, the former qualification is of much more relevance than the latter. Agricolae (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The original 1927 publication contained an error, that was then corrected for the recent reissue - I guess academic publishers do make mistakes. That doesn't change anything, because this whole debate of five or six and whether Woden actually refers to the 'son of Woden' and not Woden is a distraction from the issue of notability.  All of the references in the page break down into three categories: 1) most of them name Godulf when giving a pedigree, providing no other mention of Godulf himself.  He is just another name in just another pedigree. Arguing over how Stenton counted doesn't change the fact that he just named Godulf in a pedigree and then dismissed his cohort as being unworthy of further notice; 2) Some of them name Godulf as being in one or more lists, then go on to say that other lists name someone else in that position instead.  He is just another name in just some other pedigrees and not in others.  3) A very small number of them speculate that he may be the same as the father of the legendary Frisian, Finn.  However, this father is only known in those legends as the father of Finn, and plays no role himself.  So, at best, he is just another name in a pedigree who may be identical to just another name in a legend about whom nothing is known but his name.  No matter how one reads Stenton, no matter how one counts, he is not notable. All we can reliably say about him is that he is a name in a pedigree.  That's it.  This article spends all those lines of text, talking about the sources and his father and the linguistic elements that comprise his name, but these ornaments only obscure the fact that he is just a name in a pedigree about whom nothing more can be said that is relevant. Agricolae (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect and merge to Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies or similar. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, for sure. A very marginal item that clearly fails WP:NOTE due to obvious lack of serious 2ndary sources. One would have to stretch reality to some new level of surrealism to even consider this a notable encyclopedic item. History2007 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2012 (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.