Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Mc Peake

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 of the debate was Delete Proto||type 09:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Mc Peake[edit]

Google search yields nothing. Hoax? Neutrality^talk 22:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Searching without the space brings up a few results about a republican named "Gerard McPeake", so he may be real. Still probably non-notable. I'll withhold judgment for now. —Cuivi é nen, Tuesday, 4 April 2006 @ 22:40 (UTC)
Delete for reasons stated below. Weak Keep and tag with {{Hoax}}, in addition to uncited and original research tags. Have found a few obscure references online as User:Cuivienen, but nothing to confirm whether he's notable or not; nonetheless, if it's not a hoax, the article does a fairly good job of asserting notability, and editors should have a chance to provide references if they're available. Will change my vote if solid evidence of a hoax is provided. - dharm a bum 23:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax unless real verifiable information turns up. Apparently a great number of families claim descendancy of him, and he is a subject of great debate amongst historians — yet manages to draw what appears to be zero related google hits. Famous historians and book nowhere to be seen. Verifiability, verifiability, and verifiability. Weregerbil 23:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX and WP:V. Royboy crashfan 23:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Actually, the article does not assert notability, that I can see. Read the wording carefully. If this fellow ever did exist -- which I'm not saying -- and if this list of exploits is also true -- also which I'm not saying -- the article does not indicate any notability other than participation in this battle or membership in that group – a claim that could be made by hundreds if not thousands of other Irish Republicans. Assuming he existed:

- the records of his birth are conveniently missing

- he is one of 7000 Irish Volunteers of 1913;

- one of 11,000 Volunteers who didn't join the British army, and thus formed the IRA;

- one of 1000 or so Volunteers in the Easter Rising;

- one of 15,000 IRA soldiers in the Irish War of Independence;

- one of 15,000 IRA opponents of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, and one of 2000-3000 killed

- regarding his death: "…although specific details…are not available. It is speculated…no body was ever positively identified…speculation as to his fate continues…"

I can find none of Cuivienen's or User:Dharmabum420's obscure references. I also cannot find any references to:

Messrs Martin or Mc Caughan.
Mr Martin's book
The Irish National Aid Society

Soooo…delete: no notability; no verification; possible hoax. SigPig 04:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By asserting notability, I meant that the article asserts that the debate around him by historians is notable, while the person themselves may not be notable without that kind of attention. I did not think to search out said historians, and I find a lack of references to them far more damning. While I'm still not sure it's a hoax, that kills notability, and I changed my vote. Also, I rather prefer the first half of my username for shortening purposes. :) - dharm a bum 20:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I just cut-and-pasted your sig block from your earlier comment: didn't realize I only got the, ahem, tail end. SigPig 21:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Although the florid language and multiple references to ‘controversy’ and ‘a great debate’ may indicate an exaggeration of the importance of this participant in the most major events in Irish history, it would be erroneous to dismiss McPeake’s story lightly. If the article is factually accurate, this figure, in my opinion, is worthy of, at least, local significance if not universal interest, and, though it would be a fallacy to directly compare this man to any of the hundreds of notable American's wikipedia articles, it should not go unsaid that many of these are of similar wider significance.

I strongly disagree with user:SigPig regarding the notability of this admittedly enigmatic person. It is stated that 'the records of his birth are conveniently missing.' I would argue that the records of his birth may well have been kept in the Public Record Office at the Four Courts in Dublin, and that there was nothing convenient about the loss of a vast swathe of Irish historical records when this building was gutted by an explosion and subsequent fire in June 1922. Furthermore, I feel that it is negligent of user:SigPig to say 'the article does not indicate any notability other than participation in this battle or membership in that group.' This disregards the extraordinary record of this man, potentially belonging to a number of organisations, participating in a number of key battles, and making a significant contribution to republicanism, and the foundation of a fledgling democracy.

I fully acknowledge that there is little evidence available through Google, however, Wikipedia's own criteria for verifiability warn of the bias of this method. In my opinion it is unscientific and practically worthless in researching an Irish historical figure. This is clearly demonstrable by user:SigPig's admission that the National Aid Society is not referenced. The sheer deficiency of information on Google regarding a fairly important group in Irish modern history indicates the unreliability of ‘The Google Test’ in this instance. (According to M.E. Collins in 'Ireland 1868-1966' the Irish National Aid Society was founded by Kathleen Clarke, wife of Tom Clarke, to, among other things, 'provide a cover behind which people who had escaped arrest could begin to rebuild the Volunteers and IRB.' This detail is fully continuous with the account given in this page.)

The distinct lack of verifiable sources tempers my attitude to what is, otherwise, a worthy addition to the wikipedia, containing rare personal information on a member of several secretive groups. It can be, in my opinion, only detrimental to this encyclopaedia if colourful, personal histories like these are met with such immediate and strident criticism. JMcCann 19:41, 6 April 2006 (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.