Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alchorne


 * 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   delete. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Alchorne

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Almost certainly a copy-and-paste copvio although I can't find the text online at the moment. If not, it is OR as per the article itself "During the course of our research the Coat of Arms for the family name. The most ancient grant of a Coat of Arms was:" Travelbird (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Presumably a copy of one of these things where you pay some huckster o much money for a history of your family name, the kind of people who clog up t spam foldeof your emil account.TheLongTone (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete—Agree with the above, and check out where the link in the 'References' section goes. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 19:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The ref sort of goes nowhere. It leads to the site where you get your Olde Coatte of Armes on imitation vellum for a ludicrous amount of money. I don't know why, but I've done a fairly radical copyedit on the article, removing most of the vast amounts of ill-written fluff, but I don't know what Wiki policy n articles on names is, so have no opinion on whether its a fit subject for an article. If the Mr or Ms Alchorne who wrote the article is copying it from a document they have commissioned, does that mean they own the copyright, incidentally?.TheLongTone (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The are other articles on surnames, I think I've rewritten the article enough for copyvio not to be an issue (alhough anybody who paid money for the article as was has a clear case under the Trades Description Act: a horrible bit of boiler-plated non-english) & there is certainly supporting stuff online which could be used to add references.TheLongTone (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE. If you have references, expand the article and add them, or list them to the article talk page, or as a last resort, list them here.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 13:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment—I deleted the "reference" to the "coat of arms on a coffee mug site". The remaining reference is a personal website of a guy who researched his own family history... SPS, non-reliable, no editorial oversight, no evidence of notability.  The prose is much better, but there's still no policy-backed reason to keep this article.  Since it's not acceptably sourced, the article really should be deleted.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 13:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete From what I can see it's not the name that is important but the person with the name and any that are already have an article. It's not even that it's a common name. Also the single reference used would be unlikely to pass any reliable source tests. Bjmullan (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable, as is apparent from the preceding discussion.  Sandstein   06:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.