Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sæward of Essex


 * 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 without prejudice to merging Salvio giuliano 23:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Sæward of Essex

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

No refs on the page for many years. I found single line (sometimes single word) refs in some RS but there seems to be considerable uncertainty about basic facts in the sources. Seems to be very difficult to verify any of the facts on the page or whether any is simply personal opinion of previous editors. JMWt (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility,  and England. JMWt (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is mentioned in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography in the article on Kings of the East Saxons. I have added the ref. Given he was a king and the ODNB is a reliable source, he passes the notability threshold per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * For other !voters, the article in the OxfordDNB mentioned above says that Sæberht was succeeded by 3 sons, one of which was called Sæward (died in or after 617). And died in a battle. That's it. If this was the only verifiable source available, the WP page will only be one line long. I also think it is quite extreme to think that English tribal chieftains would be covered by WP:POLITICIAN. Nobody in the last 1300+ years thought he was even important enough to confirm his death date. JMWt (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * For completeness, he is also listed in Kings And Kingdoms Of Early Anglo Saxon England by Barbara Yorke page 52. As far as I can see, Yorke says that there were a lot of kings with names beginning S but give no biographical detail about the subject at all. JMWt (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I also think it is quite extreme to think that English tribal chieftains would be covered by WP:POLITICIAN. Why, when anyone who sat in a sub-national legislature for a single day is? A king is a damned sight more notable than most legislators. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is some details given on him in that book. See page 48: "Sabert's three sons who succeeded him returned the kingdom to paganism and expelled the Gregorian missionaries from London, and so inadvertently ensured that Canterbury remained the metropolitan centre. According to Bede, their sacrilegious actions were avenged shortly afterwards when all three were defeated and killed in a battle against the West Saxons – possibly they were battling for control of Surrey.[ref 31 – HE III, 3]" BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep he was quite literally a king of a nation. The-J-Verse (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: A merge to Kingdom of Essex is an obvious ATD that the nominator should have considered. Curbon7 (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Possibly, although there is very little on this page that isn't already on that page. What exactly are you suggesting needs merging? JMWt (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, merely being mentioned in genealogies is not sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect, per discussions below. JoelleJay (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. And: several sources now added to the article - with biographical details in these sources which contribute more than 'genealogical lists'. ResonantDistortion 23:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that none of those sources actually give any additional biographical detail - in fact, they simply repeat the name and the uncertain date of death in a battle. Which is unsurprising because they cite each other and Bede, where the name comes from. Rippon even goes further, calling the genealogy quote "mythical" and named after the Saxon god Saxnot. It looks slightly better to have a few more references on the page, but I'm not sure they are the slam-dunk you seem to think they are. JMWt (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I do, however, accept that the name is cited by Bede and is discussed by later historians. And that the biography, such that it is, can be verified (in the sense that Bede said he existed and others have said that Bede said he existed). Whether this counts as SIGCOV is perhaps a matter of opinion, for me it isn't - and is really just a passing mention by Bede of a regional chieftain. JMWt (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep Comment - I find myself on the fence. There are arguments to be made based on both WP:NPOL (the article subject being a king, even if applying the term "politician" to someone of the subject's era is perhaps a bit weird) and WP:ANYBIO#3 (based on Oxford Dictionary of National Biography), but both are additional criteria of which WP:NBIO says meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. In terms of WP:GNG we appear to have a bunch of sources that are reliable and solid as such but, based on the discussion here, there is concurrently an open question whether this counts as significant coverage. As it is now, I find myself leaning keep for reasons I'm not quite able to articulate, but wouldn't detest a merge to some list along the lines of WP:PAGEDECIDE either. For those with access to the references (I'm unable to view them on Google Books, for whatever reason), I'd much appreciate brief descriptions of whether we're talking a few sentences here-and-there, or something on the size of, say, at least a few paragraphs. and, I assume you have access to the refs you added to the article? -Ljleppan (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As follows: McCann is about a page about the genealogy with Sæward specifically mentioned once and the brothers mentioned once in one sentence. Johnson is a two sentence mention about the brothers in a section of half a page. Rippon is a sentence in a two page section. The Oxford DNB reference is a paragraph in total. Lappenburg is two sentences. JMWt (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that doesn't sound great. Ljleppan (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll change my !vote to  neutral  for now, and will do a bit more thinking; seems very borderline. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Actual vote below. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Has automatic notability per WP:NPOL and also automatic notability per WP:ANYBIO. This person was the actual king of a nation! BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you actually read WP:NBIO, the "Additional criteria" (which both NPOL and ANYBIO are) do not mean automatic notability: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards [additional criteria]. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Specifically, see WP:BIOSPECIAL which describes what ought to be done when additional criteria are met, but sourcing is insufficient for the basic criteria at WP:NBASIC. Ljleppan (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We've always treated in the past those two criteria to be givers of automatic notability. Have we ever deleted an article on someone who was the KING of an entire nation? Or at least one someone who passed NPOL (due to notability issues)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think that the notability guideline WP:NBIO (note that BIOSPECIAL is a section of NBIO) is incorrect and/or doesn't follow consensus, you can always start a talk page discussion/RfC to change it. Ljleppan (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, there was no English nation at the time. He was a king in the sense of the head of a local tribe in a part of England. And probably not even a very big one. JMWt (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, he was the king of the independent Kingdom of Essex, not just chief of a local tribe. There is a difference. By your reasoning, the Princes of Monaco and Liechtenstein probably aren't notable either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between English tribes in the 7 century and monarchs of European states in the 19/20 century. For one thing, the idea of a "state" didn't exist in the 7 century. For another, other than from the writings of Bede, we don't know anything about these guys. Literally nothing. JMWt (talk) 09:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * is something wrong I think. A head of minor kingdom is auto-notable on Wikipedia. I agree with User:Necrothesp that "By your reasoning, the Princes of Monaco and Liechtenstein probably aren't notable either." How much do you need? Please make an effort to learn about the royal AfD outcome rather than destroy. Please follow the rules. His information is limited because he lived in the medieval period. If you want to know more, please time travel. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * first, that's your opinion. You are welcome to it, but others including me disagree with your assessment of the importance you give to "auto-notability" and NPOL. Second, do not ever speak to me like that again. JMWt (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if you have high-level confidence in your opinion, you should try AfD on the articles of the Princes of Monaco. Just an advice. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think it's a bit silly to invoke WP:NPOL on a medieval petty king. That said, a little more leeway is given with rulers due to their positions as heads-of-state. Outright deletion is also just silly, as WP:BLARing to Kingdom of Essex would be preferred if the outcome isn't keep. Curbon7 (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to mention NBIO states meeting NPOL does not guarantee that a subject should be included, and NOPAGE asks us to consider whether a standalone is appropriate for the subject even if it's notable. If all we have covering this person is mere documentation of his existence, there's no reason that should be in a separate page. I'd also support redirecting. JoelleJay (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the purpose of using WP:NPOL criteria on Wikipedia? It appears that we use it as a backup criteria for saving articles during the AfD process. If this is not the case, then it may be worth considering abolishing the criteria as it could be deemed useless, IMO. Taung Tan (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep no matter how minor or stub. He is a king not a beggar. So clearly passes WP:NPOL. Pls follow the rule even a system basis, is WP:NPOL a joke to you? Many people have pleaded for the turtle to transform into a bed bug. Taung Tan (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as the subject meets WP:NPOL. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Kingdom of Essex - Applicable notability guideline is WP:NBIO. It has two parts: WP:NBASIC (which is effectively identical to WP:GNG) and several additional criteria. Sources identified so far are obviously insufficiently comprehensive to reach the significant aspect of NBASIC. The subject thus fails NBASIC. At the same time, there are credible arguments that the subject could be seen as reaching some of the Additional Criteria, namely WP:NPOL. However, as noted in the relevant section, meeting one or more [additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Indeed, unambiguous language in the Special Cases section of NBIO, WP:BIOSPECIAL states that in cases of failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria we must merge the article into a broader article providing context. Please ping me if a better merge/redirect target, or additional sourcing to fulfill NBASIC, is identified. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that he lived in the medieval era, not the present 21st century. Having discussions among historians is sufficient to meet the criteria of WP:GNG.Taung Tan (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. A merge discussion can be held separately. Srnec (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But why? As you know, individual AfDs can find consensus to merge as an ATD without a formal merge proposal. Curbon7 (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Because I do not agree with the merge proposals already made and this discussion is already reasonably long. The obvious merge target is Sexred, to make a single article on co-monarchs (re-titled, of course). Srnec (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2023 (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.