Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestry of the kings of Britain
On reconsideration, I now NOT do think this article has any merit.  The three sources are completely dis-parate, with the exception that they both include Woden and a man called Eomer/Eamer.  Pagan genealogies commonly name a god as the father of the earliest known ancestor, so that the two alleged "sons" of Woden cannot be regarded as brothers.  The two genealogies are thus completely unrelated and should not appear together.  I continue to maintain that "British" or "Britain" are inappropriate in the genelaogy of Anglian kings.  I suspect that there will be some academic discussions of these.  If we are to have articles on things such as this, they should be cited.  Icel of Mercia is essentially only known from legend.  Pybba of Mercia stands on the fringes of reliable history.  Even his father Creoda of Mercia is only known from genealogies.  Further back we are into the realms of legend.  We have a reasonable article on the Iclingas, though it is currently located at List of monarchs of Mercia.  Possibly earlier legendary ancestry might be added (as a list) to this.  However my recollection of the Wessex genealogy in ASC is that early ones trace ancestry back to a god.  Later ones have a string of further names going back to Adam.  These are clearly purely the invention of later Saxon chroniclers and are disregarded by modern historians.  The ancestry of Woden in these Anglian genealogies is similarly to be disregarded.  The sources are certainly ancient, but they are far from being contemporary ones and are thus not a .  It might possibly be appropriate to have an article dealing sceptically and separately with each royal genealogy, with a summary of scholarly discussions of them.  However this article just will not do.  '''Possibly userify
— User:Peterkingiron, 16:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)