Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leodwaldings


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  11:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Leodwaldings

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Neologism. The article purports to describe a branch of the royal family consisting of the descendants of Leodwald, but the term had then been applied in categories and infoboxes as the name of the entire dynasty. The article includes just two references, neither of which uses the term. A broader search only turns up the term in WIkipedia mirrors and offprints, with one exception. This refers to the Leodwaldings Cuthwine and Eata. These were Cuthwine Leodwalding (literally Cuthwine, son of Leodwald) and Eata Leodwalding, so it is using the term for the Leodwald-sons, not for a dynasty. So, it is not only not the name of the entire family (sometimes called the Idings), it does not appear to be used for the branch, outside of Wikipedia itself. (Note: In the history you will see I made a false-start of this AfD from an IP back in October). Agricolae (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 *  redirect  to Ida of Bernicia, perhaps Weak keep, perhaps rename, perhaps merge - I don't see "Leodwalding" in the sources, but I do see "descendants of Leodwald", and descendants of Leodwald are talked about as a group or dynasty, so an article on them as a group seems ok. Kirby 1991, p123 (cited in the article) does so, as does Carver, Martin. The cross goes north: processes of conversion in northern Europe, AD 300-1300. Boydell Press, 2005. p324. Figure 9 from Kirby gives a genealogy for Ida, and thinking about individuals in that chart as a group might be helpful. Perhaps the name of the article should be Leodwalds or descendants of Leodwald. I should note: I'm not at all an expert, and I could easily be swayed between any of these options or even delete. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly the dynasty of Ida might be notable (though they should not under any circumstances be called Leodwaldings as a whole), but I am not sure what look like passing references to the descendants of Leodwald as part of an analysis of the Bernician/Northumbrian succession as a whole represents the kind of focus specifically on this one branch that would make it notable in and of itself. Agricolae (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with everything you said. First, I definitely agree that using "Leodwaldings" for the whole dynasty is not right (and fails NEO). I also agree that the reference is passing. But my reading suggests that this family was important as a family. Even if we don't know very much about it today, it seems to me we know enough that it wouldn't be inappropriate to talk about the unit and the role of the familial connection in an article. I guess I don't strongly think that it should be talked about in a stand-alone article. It is already mentioned (with the incorrect-ish use of "-ling") in the article on Ida, and is unclearly included in the organization of List of monarchs of Northumbria (to which I just added). I changed my !vote to redirect to Ida (not much to merge), I think one use of an article at the title Leodwaldling would be a dab to Ida's children, but no article on the children exists. One thing I think about erroneous articles with genealogical interest, is that straight delete might be less useful to our readers than a redirect. A redirect might help people posting ancient family trees to fix errors more than a straight delete will. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I had to revert your change. There is no scholarly usage whatsoever that refers to the whole dynasty with any form of Leodwald's name.  It would be like calling Fulk IV, Count of Anjou a member of the House of York because his descendants several centuries down ended up being called that.  If someone wants to call the dynasty Idings (which I do see used by Yorke), that will work to a degree, but not the Leodwald dynasty, Leodwaldings, House of Leodwald or anything else having to do with Leodwald.  Even Idings is not without its problems, at least in that table.  There is no consensus on whether Glappa, Hussa or Frithuwald are children of Ida or members of a rival clan, perhaps even ruling contemporaneously with the Idings in another part of what was only then crystallizing as a nation-state.  Then there are the ones above Ida - if they are real at all and not just legend, they would also be members of the dynasty.  FOr that matter, in their time perhaps they thought of themselves as the Oesings (or after whoever Oesa's father is supposed to have been).  Any designation having to do with Leodwald would only be appropriate for this one branch of the Idings, and I don't see enough independent coverage to justify this branch having its own article. Agricolae (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as NEOLOGISM, since no one has come up with a RS usage. At worst redirect.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm changing my !vote because I think the argument for delete is better than my argument for redirect and I want to make that clear to forestall another relisting. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as failed WP:NEO it has has since 716 to come into widespread usage or generate secondary source discussions. I don't see why we should give it until 2018.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2017 (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.