Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearse dynasty

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. postdlf (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pearse dynasty[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism referenced only from other Wikipedia articles, where the mention about this term has been introduced by the creator of this article. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tobias Morter which is related to this subject. Zakhalesh (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability, and also unreferenced. Mr. Credible (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comments: the creator has been adding references to various websites, claiming a connection in the article text but as none of the websites had any information about the "dynasty", I removed the refs. Please make sure that the references given actually support the claims of the article when reviewing. Zakhalesh (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pearce dynasty: I have known about the family for many years and i can tell you they are infact a dynasty. They are relitivly low key but they are soon to set up a page on "Tumblr" and soon a website. Also they are set to open there stately home in Oxfordshire in Eynsham called chesney's on Cassington Road. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikikingqueen123 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC) — Wikikingqueen123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unfortunately Chesneys on Newland Steeet, not Cassington Road, is a farmhouse rebuilt in 1898 [1], not a stately home. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable at best, hoax at worst. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. References given are not reliable sources, and I have seen no evidence of any. Chzz ► 22:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a lack of notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Certain users participating in this debate have been blocked for sock puppetry: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dingdongdingdong123/Archive. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This dynasty has no notability; references are, as said above, created from whole cloth. --NellieBly (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.