Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wulfrida

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. Owen× ☎ 13:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wulfrida

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No verifiable evidence that Wulfrida existed Dudley Miles (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A search for Wulfrida Ethelred on Ghits does turn up a fair few matches. The problem is that none of the hits seem to be that reliable as sources. Ultimately this comes down to whether the historians amongst us agree that Wulfrida was Ethelred's wife. Anyone know? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from the discussion page - I see I put my original comment in the wrong place.) All the sources I can find for the existence of Wulfrida are unreferenced web pages. Academic sources such as the ODNB article on Wulfrida's supposed husband Æthelred of Wessex at http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8913?docPos=2 do not mention the name of his wife. The article states that Horton parish church is named after her, but according the Victoria County History at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=40142#s3 it was named after Wolfrida, the mother of Edith of Wilton, who lived a century later. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete If I recall correctly, this is based on David H. Kelley's genealogical reconstruction of the descendants of AEthelred. He mentions the reference to an otherwise unidentified Queen Wulfrida (from a coin or foundation document, I don't remember), and says that since the name sounds somewhat Danish and AEthelwold had Danish support, then Wulfrida was probably his mother. I don't find her in PASE and AEthelred's entry in the Bio Dict of Dark Age Britain fails to name her, while her name doesn't pull up a match (although all I have is limited view on Google Books). Whether she existed or not is beside the point. She doesn't come anywhere close to the depth of coverage that would constitute notability. Merging would just reinforce and give undue weight to one author's speculation, that as far as I can tell hasn't been followed by anyone outside the genealogical community. Agricolae (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information in the article is not based on the available evidence and conflicts with other articles which do have good sources.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds that, in light of the observations, the evidence is too unreliable to be reported as fact. Might have a function as a redirect to an article about the disputed genealogical reconstruction, but there doesn't seem to be an article about that, and there is too little detail in the David H. Kelley article for a redirect there to make sense at the moment. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a summary (the good work of this AfD's nominator) in Ancestry of the Godwins, perhaps about as much as it deserves (although I have long-promised to do a genealogical table that summarizes the hypotheses). A redirect could go there, but I don't know that merging any of the content would be desirable given that it is either dubious or presenting speculation as fact. Agricolae (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed a puzzling statement in the Wikipedia article on Edward the Elder. In the section on him as Ætheling, it says: "As well as his greater age and experience, Æthelwold may have had another advantage over Edward where the succession was concerned. While Alfred's wife Ealhswith is never described as queen and was never crowned, Æthelwold and Æthelhelm's mother Wulfthryth was called queen.[10]" The note is "Asser, c. 13; S 340; Yorke. Check Stafford, "King's wife"." I cannot make any sense of this. Section 13 in my copy of Asser refers to Judith's position as queen, but I cannot find any reference to Wulfthryth. A google search shows Wulfthryth as an alternative for Wulfrida on genealogical websites. Can anyone make sense of this? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now discovered the source of this statement. It is in Barbara Yorke, Edward as Ætheling, in N.J. Higham & D.H.Hill eds, Edward the Elder. On page 31 she says: "One final advantage that Æthelholm and Æthelwold may have had over Edward is that they appear to have been born to a consecrated queen. Their mother Wulfthryth only appears in one charter (S340), but there she has the title regina,..." It is curious that the name of Æthelred's wife is not mentioned in other sources such as the ODNB article on Æthelred, but maybe I should withdraw the deletion proposal and suggest instead a redirect to an article on Wulfthryth. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. She is known from one contemporary charter, and Barbara Yorke, David H. Kelley and others give her nothing but passing reference (what more could they give her without invention - the charter in question names her as Wulfthryth Regina, it does not say she is mother of anyone or founder of anything, it doesn't even specify that she was wife of the current king, AEthelred). She is still far short of the depth of coverage required to establish notability. Agricolae (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per most of the above. Wikipedia is not PASE; we don't try to have an article about every named historical person. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She doesn't have to be real to deserve an article. Any doubts in that direction do not endanger the notability of King Arthur, for example. The real problem is that she has hardly been mentioned at all, and apparently only in connection with her husband. I can see no reason why we shouldn't do it the same way. Hans Adler 10:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there is actually something interesting to be said about St. Wulfrida, then of course a different article can be created under the present name. Hans Adler 18:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is clearly talking about two different women, Wulfrida(Wulfthryth) supposed wife of Æthelred of Wessex, who apparently lived in the 9th century, and St Wolfrida who was the first Abbess of a Benedictine Abbey founded in Horton in 961AD [1]. Butler's Lives of the Saints talks about St Wolfrida who it seems had a liason with King Edgar, resulting in a child called Edith (Eadgyth). As far as Æthelred is concerned the AS charter S.340 has Wulfthryth regina as a witness to the charter dated 868 (S.340. Stevenson. Asser. p.201. Note 4: says this charters source is highly suspicious)[2][3]. There is plenty of provenance on St Wolfrida, Edgars concubine, so if it was rewritten on that basis it would be OK, but not as it stands for Æthelred's wife. Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stevenson appears to be alone in regarding S340 as suspicious. Modern historians accept it as genuine, but disagree whether it shows that Wulfthryth was Æthelred's queen. I have put what I think can usefully be said about her in Æthelred of Wessex. I agree that the tenth century saint deserves an article but I think it should be under the name Wulfthryth, which is how her name is shown in ODNB and PASE. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that we are pretty much in agreement. Delete the Wulfrida article, any speculation about Æthelred's wife/ queen to be confined to the Æthelred page and perhaps a new article on St Wulfthryth? Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.