Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradlee family


 * 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. note to, I will temporarily restore a copy to your user space if you haven't saved the source. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Bradlee family

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Lacks coverage in reliable sources i.e. fails WP:GNG and is probably based on original research by the author. It is also a violation of WP:NOTGENEALOGY. SmartSE (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Please don't delete this page. I will work on it. One of your pages says not to put too many sources up before you publish it, so that's what I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinnbradlee (talk • contribs) 15:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Which page? That makes no sense. You want to include as many sources as you can or else notability won't be seen. in the topic. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete This is just a somewhat normal, non-notable family tree. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ultimately delete -- This is largely a not notable family. However, it should be left up long enough for Quinnbradlee to make a copy for his (or her) own use and subsequent publication in a more suitable forum.  This may be appropriate to be published in a family history magazine or webpage, but does not belong in Wikipedia.  Much of the early section of the article comes close to fantasy, which WP calls original research.  Constable is not an occupation but a manorial office, which a person would have done part-time and probably without pay.  I doubt it was a hereditary office.  "Constable of England" sounds like a military office under the crown, but the text does not support that.  Halifax was an enormous manor.  It is likely to have been administered as a large number of townships.  The constable may have been responsible for keeping order and collecting taxes in his township.  The office would be an essentially local one and completely non-notable.  Origins para 1 is pure fantasy: a few of the facts may be true, but they way in which they are linked is not.  The attempt to link to Noah is certainly a medieval invention.  How reliable the Irish genealogies are nobody knows: they are regarded as legendary.  Dolfin of Carlisle is real, but not necessarily the ancestor of those subsequently named.  There is then a long gap in the genealogy, which suggests that no link is established.  De Bradley (however spelt) means of Bradley, implying a connection with a place of that name.  Spellings were not fixed, so that no one "changed" the spelling of their name: the scribe wrote what he heard.  A little later dates are given as 1450 and 1475.  These are almost certainly approximate dates, estimated on the basis that a generation was 25 years: there was no registration of baptisms until 1539, so that such estimates are the best one can get and should always be qualified with "about" or c.  Need I go on?  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Userification is fine for now if cleanup can be done, but other users have made a good point - it is unlikely that notability can be established without significant work, if ever. Plus a lot of OR in here too. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.