Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Brian "The Gersh"

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. Singularity 19:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Brian "The Gersh"

Captain Brian "The Gersh" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This one smells wrong. I don't believe a word of it, and whilst I can't directly check any of the cited books, a few of them are available through Google Books and a keyword search for 'brian' or 'gersh' doesn't bring up a thing. This is the original author's sole contributions, and it just screams 'hoax' to me. Shimgray | talk | 02:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - unless an actual source can be found. Listed sources Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: Merchant Seamen, Pirates and the Anglo-American Maritime World and Sodomy and Pirate Tradition: English Sea Rovers in the Seventeenth Century Caribbean are available via Google Books, and neither turns up "The Gersh". -- Cyrius|✎ 03:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm just not buying this one. Cites sources but he doesn't seem to be mentioned in them... all the hallmarks of a hoax here. --W.marsh 03:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with above. Cirt (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC).
• Delete almost certainly a hoax. JJL (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete It certainly sounds like a hoax, but there isn't any solid evidence supporting the allegation that it actually is one. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as a probable hoax, and also failing the notability guideline re coverage in reliable secondary sources. While a number of book sources are attached to the article, an online search (including a googlebooks search of the books themselves) reveals no mentions of this allegedly famous pirate. Specific references are also false - a full list of pirates mentioned in the first reference can be found here and there is no "the Gersh" among them. A few other telltale signs:

1) there are zero references for the alleged vessels "Guy Porter" or ""Bass Lake", zero references for the extremely detailed family history and the only references for Johnathon Reis are for the 20th century sportsman.

2)His alleged lifespan of 69 years is very long for anyone of his era, let alone a hardliving pirate.

3)His parents cannot have met at Scarborough Fair between 1630-1635 because Scarborough Fair closed in the very early 1600's and didn't reopen until the 1700's.

4) His alleged ship bears a startling resemblance to Blackbeard's Queen Anne's Revenge - built in Britain, captured by French, renamed, converted to pirate vessel, armed with the same number of cannon. His retirement to a quiet plantation bears a startling resemblance to Captain Morgan, the only prominent Caribbean pirate to achieve retirement and die in old age.

5) The crew of "Dutch immigrants" (immigrants to where?) can't pronounce "van Splinter" so they settle for "zee Gersh". Yet "van" as part of a name is of Dutch origin. Presumably these Dutch immigrants didn't speak Dutch. Oddly, they abandoned their immigration to spend 20 years as pirates, too.

5) Gersh's piracy career is so long as to be a kind of miracle, yet he has been "overlooked by historians because of his docile nature"? Blackbeard lasted 4 years, Bartholomew Roberts 2, Stede Bonnet 1 and Captain Morgan an astonishing 10. If there ever was a Captain Gersh, his 20-year career would have made him one of the most famous pirates in the Caribbean. Yet amazingly he is overlooked and completely unreferenced outside of this Wikipedia article.

In short - no sources (fails notability) and a probable hoax (per the holes in the "story"). Euryalus (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Euryalus's excellent analysis. There's more holes in this story than... something with a heck of a lot of holes in it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Don't delete' I see no reason as to why it needs to be deleted. I mean, honestly. It is quite hard to find information on some people. Perhaps, this pirate, is just another one that is difficult to find. Perhaps we must keep it because it is one of the few sources out there. I do not agree with deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoi kiui (talk • contribs)
  • Wikipedia is not a source. It's a compilation of information from sources. And - as Euryalus mentioned - the utter lack of information about a pirate whose career lasted a startling 20 years is highly suggestive that he never existed. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I read Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition, and don't recall this story, although I may be wrong. Smells fishy. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2007 (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.