Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eadwig's Charter to Abingdon Abbey c.957

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Eadwig's Charter to Abingdon Abbey c.957}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Eadwig's Charter to Abingdon Abbey c.957}})

This article is a rambling mess that spends no time at all describing the supposed subject, a land grant. I'm not making a notability argument here, more of a blow it up and start over argument.

If the charter itself is notable, the article should be about that, but this article wanders from one subject to another, like what kind of farming Danish Vikings may have done on this land before the charter, what kinds of rushes like what kind of soil, a three-hundred-year timeline of the area that was the subject of the charter, etc. I don't know what this is supposed to be, but it does not look like an article about a land charter. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and England. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with the nom statement, but in addition, even if the charter were independently notable (it is not), the best place to discuss it anyway would be Abingdon Abbey. A redirect would not be appropriate; this is not a reasonable search term. -- asilvering (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. I was tempted to nominate it when I added the maintenance templates 3 months ago, and nothing has improved since I flagged the issues. Even if the topic is notable, it would be easier to start from scratch than try to fix the current article which is pure WP:SYNTH going far beyond what any of the citations support. Joe D (t) 20:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Not an article. Someone's notes on tangentially-related topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, or at the very least, get it out of mainspace. This is a draft at its fetal stage. Qwirkle (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Denmark. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• delete Goodness gracious. This is many things. A coherent article is not one of them. Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Possible subject for a PhD. But not enough material out there for an article right now and I don't see cause to presume notability. TNT considerations are also valid. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. In terms of notability, the article Anglo-Saxon charters lists two volumes of Charters of Abingdon Abbey, published by Oxford University Press in 2000 and 2001 - this article references neither. This charter might be individually notable, or the collection of charters to Abingdon Abbey might be, but it's not clear without access to the sources what a notable topic might be, and it's definitely not this strange conglomeration of information. I agree, WP:TNT applies. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: not a useful encyclopedia article. PamD 11:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.