Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adtwifyrdi

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 to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adtwifyrdi

)

The reference given for Adtwifyrdi simply mentions the name Bede gave to the location; there's no evidence this has any currency. Googling and subtracting references to Wikipedia and to the exact wording used in the article leaves just about nothing. Google Books has a single use from 1917 in a passage that recounts Bede's use of the word and then glosses it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Obviously not in use today, but it's still verifiable, so it should be merged in the relevant article's history section. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think anyone really knows where this Twyford was, so merging it into a particular article is problematic. (The source in this article says Alnmouth, the Google Books hit mentioned by the nom suggests Whittingham, and I'm sure other nearby sites have been proposed.) The place is already mentioned in the River Aln article, with basically the same information (except for the identification with Alnmouth) included here. Deor (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep places in famous historical sources such as Bede should continue to have articles, even if there is no clear identification. People will look for them. This is a comprehensive encyclopedia, and they should be able to find out here what is, and what is not known about such things. Part of the role of an encyclopedia is to deal with such unfamiliar matters. DGG (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I left the house on a business trip today and won't have access to my books till next Wednesday evening. However, I believe it is the case that editions of Bede in translation do not use "Adtwifyrdi". Certainly there are none that do accessible via Google Books (and it does have some old editions fully online). I'd be very surprised if there exists an edition with "Adtwifyrdi" in it which does not gloss it at the same time. Regardless, someone might search for it -- but we don't have to have an article on everything that could be searched for. Perhaps some future List of placenames in Historia Ecclesiastica could be a redirect target, but we'd have to find a reliable source that produced such a list (there may be one). Anyway, my point is that retaining this for utility seems very low value. It's pretty hard to encounter this word in any way that won't tell you everything a Wikipedia article could tell you. Mike Christie (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with the above) As the nom pointed out, no one in modern times uses this Latin form of the name, which to the best of my knowledge occurs only once, in the text of Bede's Ecclesiastical History. When referring to the place's only claim to fame—as the site of

Cuthbert's election to the bishopric of Lindisfarne—synod of Twyford is the name that is used. The Loeb edition of Bede, for example, footnotes "Adtwifyrdi" as "Twyford in Northumberland." We don't have articles for the Latin names of known places in Britain, and we certainly don't need one for a place whose location can only be guessed at. Deor (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, it's those that we do need articles for, especially if there has been scholarly debate about the identification or location of the toponym. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG, though in part I agree with all of the above (this is a tricky one). Sure, the place is mentioned only in EH IV.28. But in my edition (Odford UP: 1994, by McClure and Collins) it's spelled (per usual v-w interchange) as "Adtuifyrdi"--so Mike Christie's hunch (a well-educated guess) is invalidated. This suggests to me that it's worthwhile keeping, since the name does occur in a modern, widely used translation. Then again, merge to where? Keep, therefore. Incidentally, the 684 synod also deposed Tunberth of Hexham, which might add a tiny bit of flesh to the matter. MGM, care to make a redirect for the alternate spelling? (BTW, Mike Christie's suggested article is a good one.) Drmies (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After a fairly thorough search, I did eventually find a passing reference to Adtuifyrdi in EH IV.28 as Drmies says; but I'm very definitely with Deor. I can't agree that there's "scholarly debate" here; I think it's a horrendously obscure piece of Bede-trivia that should certainly be denied its own article.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The sentence Here, according to Bede's account in
bishop of Lindisfarne is worth preserving, either in River Aln or Synod of Twyford, and we should probably mention this bizarre piece of Anglo-Latin and have a redirect. But not an article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with a Synod of Twyford article to host this (and more) material. Deor (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2009 (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.