Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witta, son of Wecta


 * 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. Discussion regarding editorial decisions should continue at the article's talk page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Witta, son of Wecta

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find significant coverage for this mythological or real person. It looks like the only coverage is "A.D. 449 [...] Their leaders were two brothers, Hengest and Horsa; who were the sons of Wihtgils; Wihtgils was the son of Witta, Witta of Wecta, Wecta of Woden. From this Woden arose all our royal kindred, and that of the Southumbrians also." Joe Chill (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * merge, no point in a standalone article, but the title can easily redirect to a discussion of Jutish or Anglo-Saxon genealogy. --dab (𒁳) 07:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The merge with Hengest as suggested on the article would perhaps be more appropriate. However, it is likely that this could be developed into an article. It is certainly a good example of having to look beyond Google for sources. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  09:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree that this is the sort of material that Google isn't going to cover well, given that the subject predates the sort of media that Google sees.  But even if little more could be said about him that isn't already covered in this stub, fifth century Jutish leaders get encyclopedia articles even if little more than their names are remembered. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "fifth century Jutish leaders get encyclopedia articles even if little more than their names are remembered." Why should they? Joe Chill (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because, apart from any notability guideline, they are "encyclopedic." They represent the sort of information about minor historical figures, like Ocodelus or Amafinius, that print encyclopedias cover. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - as nobility and/or historical character. Once notable, always so. Bearian&#39;sBooties (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2009 (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.