This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
I have removed the {{prod}} tag which proposed that this article be deleted, because I think that this article has merit and so should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here as notification. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article as that process is only to be used when there is no opposition. Warden (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
When this passed its AfD, it was nonetheless with comments saying it 'needed a lot of work' - that work has not happened in the intervening years. Two major things jump out at a superficial look. 1) the use of unreliable sources. The article is largely built on Plantagenet-Harrison, who was a fantasist who adopted his own absurd surname and groundlessly claimed to be the true rightful Duke of Lancaster, and Percy Musgrave, whose work was self-published and not of the highest quality. 2) a number of apparent contradictions - it says Cuthbert Musgrave was the first in the colonies when he settled in MD in 1660s, right after reporting earlier settlements, and saying that the earliest form of the name is from 1226, but then detailing supposed instances of people named de Musgrave going back to pre-Norman times. These two types of problems are related, in that it is exactly the type of poor-quality sources as Plantagenet-Harrison and Musgrave who make dubious claims of pre-Norman origin for families that can't actually be documented until much later. So, a lot of work still needed. Agricolae (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
