319:
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.
223:
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 Knowledge itself. (Note: In the history you will see I made a false-start of this AfD from an IP back in October).
300:
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
267:. 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
318:
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.
222:
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
299:
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
284:
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
308:
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
169:
259:- 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.
122:
163:
416:- 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.
449:
203:
429:
476:
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.
129:
95:
90:
304:(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
301:
99:
17:
184:
82:
151:
389:
362:
504:
40:
145:
349:
141:
500:
485:
481:
461:
441:
420:
406:
380:
353:
328:
313:
294:
275:
232:
215:
64:
36:
86:
191:
324:
290:
228:
211:
177:
78:
70:
345:
285:
the kind of focus specifically on this one branch that would make it notable in and of itself.
457:
437:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
499:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
477:
376:
244:
157:
320:
286:
224:
207:
55:
473:
417:
310:
272:
453:
433:
400:
116:
264:
260:
372:
344:
as NEOLOGISM, since no one has come up with a RS usage. At worst redirect.
265:
The cross goes north: processes of conversion in northern Europe, AD 300-1300
493:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
263:, p123 (cited in the article) does so, as does Carver, Martin.
392:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
365:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
112:
108:
104:
176:
398:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
371:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
507:). No further edits should be made to this page.
190:
8:
450:list of England-related deletion discussions
448:Note: This debate has been included in the
428:Note: This debate has been included in the
204:list of History-related deletion discussions
202:Note: This debate has been included in the
430:list of People-related deletion discussions
447:
427:
201:
7:
24:
302:List of monarchs of Northumbria
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
309:than a straight delete will.
524:
486:19:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
462:23:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
442:23:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
421:02:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
407:01:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
329:20:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
314:19:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
295:19:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
276:19:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
233:15:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
216:15:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
65:11:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
381:02:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
354:16:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
496:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
464:
444:
409:
383:
218:
63:
515:
498:
403:
397:
395:
393:
370:
368:
366:
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
62:
60:
53:
34:
523:
522:
518:
517:
516:
514:
513:
512:
511:
505:deletion review
494:
410:
401:
388:
386:
384:
361:
359:
245:Ida of Bernicia
137:
128:
93:
77:
74:
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
521:
519:
510:
509:
489:
488:
466:
465:
445:
424:
423:
396:
385:
369:
358:
357:
356:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
279:
278:
220:
219:
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
520:
508:
506:
502:
497:
491:
490:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
468:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
446:
443:
439:
435:
431:
426:
425:
422:
419:
415:
412:
411:
408:
405:
404:
394:
391:
382:
378:
374:
367:
364:
355:
351:
347:
346:Peterkingiron
343:
340:
339:
330:
326:
322:
317:
316:
315:
312:
307:
303:
298:
297:
296:
292:
288:
283:
282:
281:
280:
277:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
241:
237:
236:
235:
234:
230:
226:
217:
213:
209:
205:
200:
199:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
495:
492:
469:
413:
399:
387:
360:
341:
306:Leodwaldling
305:
268:
256:
252:
248:
239:
238:
221:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
79:Leodwaldings
71:Leodwaldings
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
478:E.M.Gregory
164:free images
472:as failed
261:Kirby 1991
255:, perhaps
251:, perhaps
247:, perhaps
58:Sandstein
501:talk page
454:• Gene93k
434:• Gene93k
321:Agricolae
287:Agricolae
249:Weak keep
225:Agricolae
208:Agricolae
37:talk page
503:or in a
418:Smmurphy
390:Relisted
363:Relisted
311:Smmurphy
273:Smmurphy
240:redirect
123:View log
39:or in a
402:MBisanz
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
474:WP:NEO
470:Delete
414:Delete
373:Kurykh
342:Delete
269:delete
253:rename
142:Google
100:delete
50:delete
257:merge
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
482:talk
458:talk
438:talk
377:talk
350:talk
325:talk
291:talk
229:talk
212:talk
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
243:to
192:TWL
121:– (
52:.
484:)
460:)
452:.
440:)
432:.
379:)
352:)
327:)
293:)
271:.
231:)
214:)
206:.
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
480:(
456:(
436:(
375:(
348:(
323:(
289:(
227:(
210:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.