Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Ralf of Bracebridge


 * 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.  kur  ykh   09:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sir Ralf of Bracebridge

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete"Little is known about Sir Ralf" almost qualifies as enough said. Only reference is a self-published book about the authors genealogy. No evidence mentioned that would indicate notability. Borderline speedy candidate. Nothing found in ghits that looks useful, first 100 are google hits and genealogy sites. Horrorshowj (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   —Horrorshowj (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   —Horrorshowj (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete--I'm in agreement with Horrorshow. The article does not help itself by practically denying its own credibility, and indeed, that book, I don't see that as a reference for anything (just look at the product description on amazon). Drmies (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * delete If you strip out all the "probably", "maybe" and "likely" from the text there's not much left. Also, I'm at a loss as to how someone can be defined as the earliest known member of a family when their issue is listed as "Unknown". MadScot (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Deelte, no source will be seen as made up stuff.-- Free way  8  03:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure what you mean. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Too much speculation, too few facts. Fails verifiability due to lack of reliable sources Edison (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - it's a bit startling to have a definite year of birth with everything else unknown. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, seems a bit dubious, I'm not sure that the source listed is reliable enough for WP:V or WP:N. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete - Knighthood in the sense implied by this article did not exist in England in the era in question; the name seems too modern, and the lack of sources is highly suspicious. I conjecture that this is a hoax, written by someone whose familiarity with the history of the era is limited to the Lady Godiva legend. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Four books which would appear to be reliable sources mention a Ralf of/de Bracebridge in the 13th century. The only references to "Sir Ralf of Bracebridge" in 975 appear to be self-published by the Kingsbury family. McWomble (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's customary, when assessing genealogical claims in Britain, to be extremely skeptical of claims of lineage going back before 1066. in this case, that definitely applies. Where are these modern Bracebridges based? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Temporary Keep- the author appears to be a respected contributor of some note, having created a number of (apparently quite serious) articles, which have undergone independent editing (many on Chess). I am too unversed on the family to be sure of the facts, but if the premise is hoaxiness, I think more faith should be given to an apparently in good faith user.  Can we refer it to some sort of sub-group of experts on this area?  If they decide it's rubbish, then fineJJJ999 (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just plain wrong. There are no "Sirs" to be found in Anglo-Saxon England, and any book by an amateur genealogist claiming that there were is entirely untrustworthy, not that amateur genealogy is to be trusted at any time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding the point JJJ. I don't believe we've claimed the editor who created the article is perpetrating a hoax or otherwise acting in bad faith. The author who wrote the self-published book upon which the article is based is the one with the credibility problems. Unless they are the same person,which would be a coi, then it's inaccurate to view this as besmirching the editor's integrity. The biggest issue is that a self-published genealogy book someone wrote about their own family is the only proof of any kind found for the subject's existence. There's no way to verify the meager assertion of notability in the article, due to vanity press pubs not being reliable sources. Factual errors strongly point to why the reference shouldn't be given any credibility though.Horrorshowj (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand the reasons, but is anyone here an expert on this region? If this is in good faith, then maybe it should be refered to people who are experts on this sort of thing, to see if it can be salvaged.  Not everything exists on google, and there doesn't seem to be any dispute about good faith.  Sure, it may need mass changes because of the problems you cite, but that doesn't mean there is no truth in it, nor that the person may not necessarily be notable within the community (the article would simply need to mention that the history of this notable figure was dubious and exaggerated)JJJ999 (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm an amateur historian with an interest in royal and noble genealogy, and I've studied the era in moderate detail. I really don't think this person existed. If another, more reliable source can be found asserting both existence and notability, I'll change my vote. But saying that a person only attested in one, unreliable source might be notable despite not being backed by any WP:RS at all seems tenuous. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Seems about as believable as King Ralph. Edison (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2008 (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.