Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of legendary kings of Denmark

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 speedy keep. Nominator has expressed their wish to withdraw the nomination, and with no outstanding delete !votes, I am closing this pursuant to WP:SK#1. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 23:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of legendary kings of Denmark

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

There is no historicity here and there can be little doubt that much of the article is original research which, as I understand it, is contrary to one of this site's precepts since all content must be verifiable. Please advise me if I misunderstand. Taken as a whole, the names are speculative and the list constitutes unencyclopaedic content which could mislead readers. It would be better to have just the individual articles for each person, providing their legendary status is verifiable by reference to the Sagas, and ensure that all of these articles are placed in a common category or, possibly, a common template for addition to each article.

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same argument applies:

I notice that a similar case exists for Norway but the legendary kings have been incorporated into Petty kingdoms of Norway. This could be a solution for the above instead of merely deleting them. Ziggy (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The list of legendary kings of Denmark is not historic and speculative by definition. That doesn't mean it isn't encyclopedic. I could see better organization of the list (for instance, organize it based on which annals or history an individual is mentioned in - Saxo Grammaticus', Adam of Bremen's, Svend Aggesen's, etc). But there is plenty of research discussing the subject, suggesting no problems with Notability. V really isn't a problem, it is only necessary that the list be made up of names reliable sources call legendary or mythical kings, not that these people need to really have been kings or existed. NOR is iffy because it is perfectly possible that no one source mentions every name in this list, but that is normal for lists. I don't see a big NPOV issue, but I could be wrong. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't OR. It is a list of figures whose historicity is doubted however they are attested in sagas and the like. This would be similar to, say, Prophets of Christianity or Kings of Israel and Judah (some are historical (external non-bible confirmation), some are attested to from biblical sources only - might be historical, might not). Or various lists we have on totally fictional characters.Icewhiz (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per above. The article certainly needs more references (especially for the dates provided), but isn't OR. ‑‑Yodin^T 17:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As previous mentioned above. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is a developing consensus here and it suggest sthe site is more inclusive than I would have expected. Okay, can I withdraw the case and terminate this process? Thanks. Ziggy (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2018 (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.