We can consider it fortunate that WikiTree does not accept profiles for people born before the year 1 of the Common Era. Therefore discussions -- which can be quite heated -- of whether the Bible, or the Qur'an, or other sacred writings are true -- are ouside the scope of WikiTree.
When I was a boy several Sunday school classmates and I started a family tree of the Bible starting from the beginning, and entered names on a huge sheet of paper. Then we got to Noah and the Flood, and all the lines ended except for Noah's; all the work we had done on other people seemed to be in vain. That probably soured me on biblical genealogy for ever!
I maintain a free-space page entitled Genealogies Reaching Back to Adam and Eve and add things to it from time to time. It sounds like the line you describe needs to be a part of it. From a history perspective, what is historical is that some one -- or ones -- developed the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. We can figure out when that happened, and a bit of the background involved. As to the content, we can make certain deductions as John Atkinson has mentioned.
People had different standards of truth and belief in the days these documents were put together. If I published a genealogy showing you were the grandson of Queen Victoria, that would be a fabrication; if you paid me money to do that it would be a fraud. But who's to say what was in the head of a medieval monk who helped put together the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles? I'm content to simply report what we know about when it was written, and who was involved, and where they may have gotten their ideas.
But as for the profiles of people reported in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, they need to reflect today's standards of truth as much as possible. When the profiles already exist, we try to document them as much as possible; we will no longer create new profiles for pre-1500 people without solid evidence that they existed.