Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cacabred

: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 Speedy Deleted as a G7 Author Request. Note that consensus, were I to be judging this as a proper close, seemed to be leaning strongly to a standard Delete, so bear that in mind when evaluating a future version under G4. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

=[[Cacabred]]=

:{{la|Cacabred}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Cacabred}})

  • Queried AfD Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete The sources provided are not reliable and I sincerely doubt that this "Cacabred" is really one of the oldest names in England. If the info can be reliably sourced, it could be added to an article on the surname Cakebread later, should there be a need for an article on this - actually existent - surname. Travelbird (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Neither of the sources provided are reliable. One appears to be a spammish self-published web site and the other is an online genealogical database that anyone can register to edit. Within the database is a link to another self-published web site that at the least appears to have some sincerely researched content, though still by no means a reliable source. As Travelbird indicates, a more realistic path, possible only assuming there are reliable sources available, would be to have an article on the contemporary surname Cakebread and include mentions of this earlier alternate spelling. Cacabred could then be justified as a redirect to the Cakebread surname article. older ≠ wiser 13:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete As one of my ancestral names, Godwin, can be traced back to Godwin, Earl of Wessex, ie before 1066, it shows that there are older and more abundant names in existence, making Cacabred not very notable. Putney Bridge (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. I refuse to believe that a website offering to sell you DNA kits to prove you are a Cacabred is reliable in any sense of the word. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

:Please delete this now!!!!!!!!!!!!

:I cannot be bothered anymore to use wikipedia.

:If you could have waited 5 minutes for me to finish the article then you would see all evidence etc. but I want nothing more to do with it.

:learn about DNA before posting that comment.

It is one of the oldest actually. I don't need you to believe it as this is a fact that can be proven (not by me as I have lost all interest)

WRONG= Cacabred is "one of" the oldest recored names. NOT the oldest. who made that claim putney bridge? I never said it was notable either.

WRONG-The website does not offer to sell you DNA kits!

:just delete it it all now.

:Thanks for an informative time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakebread (talk • contribs) 10:37, 18 February 2011

::The claim that it is one of the oldest was never refuted. The point I was making is that being one of the oldest names is not notable in itself. I think this Afd has turned into a speedy G7 delete anyway Putney Bridge (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2011 (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.