Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Dacre (knight)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Dacre (knight)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unsourced, and no indication of notability. This 2007 version shows 5 sources:

A user-contributed genealogy website
A site my browser security warns me away from
The contributing editor's own research
Looks good: but the Dacre mentioned was active in 1349-1350, wrong period
Dead link

An added complication is that the article on his father, Thomas Dacre, 6th Baron Dacre (1387-1458), says that his eldest son, Thomas "was living in 1453 but predeceased his father" - but this Thomas is shown with a precise death date of 15 January 1448.

The article seems to have been created from unreliable family history sources, and should have no place in our encyclopedia unless someone can find more reliable evidence of his life and dates, and of something beyond his existence which makes him notable.

I'm not a historian, just someone working on the unreferenced Cumbria articles as part of the WP:FEB24 unreferenced articles backlog drive, so someone else may well be able to improve this article. Please do so. PamD 20:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PamD 20:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Jstor has a few "name drops" of this individual, but nothing we'd consider extensive coverage. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing reliable to merge and the only clear redirect target for this term is the disambiguation page Thomas Dacre because both the 2nd and 4th Lord Dacres were knights. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2024 (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.