Talk:Sexræd and Sæward of Essex

Proposed merge of Sæward of Essex into Sexred

As discovered in the latest AfD, the reliable sources say very little about the subject, containing only passing mentions. The subject does not thus pass WP:GNG/WP:NBASIC. As per WP:BIOSPECIAL (Part of WP:NBIO), articles that fail WP:GNG/WP:NBASIC but pass one of the "additional criteria" (here, WP:NPOL) must be merge[d] ... into a broader article providing context. If merged, a separate discussion can be held whether to (or what to) rename the target article to. Ljleppan (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Klbrain: Is it too late for me to oppose this proposal? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: Not too late as far as I'm concerned; what's your counterargument to the case Ljleppan makes? Klbrain (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Klbrain: If, for no other reason, because I sincerely believe that we should have individual articles on those who were quite literally the actual kings of entire nations; several at the deletion discussion also thought the same and opposed merging (they just didn't seem to find out about this discussion). But also, because Saeward passes both WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL, which we have historically treated as indicators and presumers of notability, even when sources can't be found due to the age and topic of the subject; additionally, the full quote that Ljleppan partially quoted is If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria: Merge the article into a broader article providing context – the part stating "a satisfying explanation" seems to imply to me that the articles passing those criteria can be kept despite a lack of sources if there's a satisfying explanation for keeping the article – being the king of an entire nation is certainly one in my opinion. Also, I'm sure there's plenty of other offline book sources, journals and other things mentioning Saeward to write something longer – we just haven't found them yet (a "satisfying explanation" as well, in my view, for a topic like the subject we've got here – there appears to be lots of results on Google Books for "Saeward"/"Sæward", many of which are offline – there's also a few like this that have details of him not in the article when prior to it being merged). One more point, if there is consensus to merge, why should the final title be Sexred and not Saeward or something else? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The source you site includes both Sæward and Sexred together, which is an excellent argument in favour of a merge. The reliable sources we have discuss them together, and hence what is said about one often applies to the other. The formal merge reasons are hence overlap, context and short text. I absolutely agree with a move of the joint page to a joint name; either Sæward and Sexred or Sexred and Sæward would be fine, as per WP:AND; perhaps the latter, given the current structure of the article. Klbrain (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)