Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armigerous Families of Great Britain

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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 18:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armigerous Families of Great Britain

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

Unreferenced, possible hoax. Previously prodded a year ago and nothing seems to have changed: "Organisation does not seem to exist, article contains factual errors, which themselves are not worth correcting because they are about other topics (coatrack)". Fails WP:RS at the very least. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essay, unreferenced, etc. andy (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not actually convinced this even really exists, much less passes WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No mention on the College of Arms website. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, unsourced hoax. Propably doesn't even exist. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 18:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if it exists, it's certainly not notable. Fails WP:ORG. -- role^player 21:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it exists, and sources can be found, but I'm not sure it passes WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into British nobility. It seems to be the British arm of CILANE but most of the content is about the British nobility. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without adequate references the material is too untrustworthy to merge. andy (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2010 (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.