Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyre Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. JOHN COLLISON (An Liúdramán) 23:26, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eyre Empire

Hoax? Nonsense? Fiction? Anyway, there's only one Google hit for "Eyre Empire". Plus this article was created by a vandal. RickK 06:23, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Foobaz·✐ 06:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not think that this article should be deleted, namely because it seems to be a fascinating part of history. I, too, did a google search, one for Truelove Eyre, and a number of websites came up. All members should google search for Truelove Eyre before they either vote to delete, lest wikipedia should be deprived of a very interesting historical entity. And, if google hits for the Eyre Empire are rare, that is probably because the entire thing went on within one family. I've been doing my homework, and there IS an Eyrecourt in Ireland. Go to yahoo.com, and search it. Then try google, and britannica. Tourists go there now. Add to that, there is a large inland body called, "Lake Eyre," in Australia. Deleting this article would be silly, and deprive students and history buffs of a topic that is not covered very often.
  • i dont know how to vote on this thing, but i agree w/the last person. That articles cool, its helping me with my paper. you should leave it up.
    • Please note that both anonymous comments above were added by the same IP address, 68.18.24.191. Also, i reformatted the comments to make them easier to read, but did not alter the content. Foobaz·✐ 19:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • The comments would naturally use the same IP address, as they're coming from the same computer. I posted a comment here some time ago, as has my sister. It seems utterly ridiculous to me to delete this article, especially when there is such an abundance of outside reference for it. Go to google and look up Jehu Eyre. You have to search around a bit, but it's there. How does one vote not to delete? Also, look up, "Eyre Coat of Arms."
        • 68.18.24.191, if "there is such an abundance of outside reference for it," why didn't you cite them in the article instead of having everybody else search for it? Zzyzx11 20:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • The answer for that is simple: I did not write the article. However, I still stand by what I said; I'm not a history person in the sense that I don't enjoy it (though I do not quite a bit about it because of some wonderful teachers), yet this piqued my interest. My sister and I both have to report on a historical family (she's doing the Hapsburgs), and these people just seemed like a very fascinating bunch. Plus, there are about five different people who routinely use this computer, which means that when I have to do research, I need it FAST. Wikipedia has become my academic crutch, especially in terms of history. I've always liked it because it features articles on things that aren't always widely known. If I, a high school student, can find information on google to back this stuff up, then surely wikipedia can recognize said article's validity. Trust me, google, yahoo, it's there. Just do what I did and you can see these sources for yourself. I'll ask my friend about all of this...he is a real whiz with history.
            • Funny, when I Google for "Truelove Eyre", I get zero hits. Care to point to a single website (created before today's date) that has a mention of him? RickK 22:47, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • restarting the indentation
    • Certainly. Go to YAHOO.COM (NOT GOOGLE) and type "Truelove Eyre" into the search bar. A list will come up. Numbers 1 and 5 give a history about the story surrounding this man and his family. Poke around the other websites there, because I've only had time to look at a few. This is all very exciting! I feel like a detective...but with history...kind of. 68.18.24.191 (talk · contributions)
      • I found the Eyre Empire's blog! Foobaz·✐ 23:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Looks like even more of this nonsense. And when I did as suggested and went to yahoo, I still got zero hits -- [1]. RickK 23:58, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
        • Come on, you've got to be kidding. I don't know how much easier to make this; on the first page of the yahoo search are ten different websites. Did you actually go into any of them or just look at the titles? Here, this is the simplest way I know how to do this: http://eyres.home.texas.net/Eyrecrest.htm. I mean, heck, the other guy found something. Foobaz, you seem to know what you're doing. Go to yahoo and do what I wrote earlier. Be sure to actually go INTO 1. and 5. on the sites that pop up. By the way, an Eyre blog? I'll have to search around for more in that vein. 68.18.24.191 (talk · contributions)
          • WHOOPS, SORRY!!! WRONG WEBSITE!!! THE REAL WEBSITE IS: http://eyres.home.texas.net/Eyrescrest.htm. GO TO THIS ONE, NOT THE ONE PREVIOUSLY LISTED!!! 68.18.24.191 (talk · contributions)
            • There is still nothing at the page indicated which supports any of the material in the article. I'm through with this, the hoaxing has wasted enough time. RickK 00:20, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
              • OH, MY, GOSH, YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING. I know why you didn't get any hits on yahoo: you weren't actually supposed to put the quotation marks into the search! Just enter in the name Truelove Eyre WITHOUT quotation marks. 68.18.24.191 (talk · contributions)
              • "Nothing at the page that supports anything in the article?" I suppose that the whole "legend of Truelove Eyre," thing wasn't in either article, right? 68.18.24.191 (talk · contributions)
  • Okay, okay. Google for truelove + eyre + "william the conqueror", that brings up some actual hits. No vote yet, but I just wanted to establish that this isn't completely a hoax. DS 03:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I also attempted to follow the anon contributor's suggestions for verifying the content of this article. I have found a few datapoints at the perimeter and two blogs but not enough to convince me yet that this is verifiable. No vote yet but inclining strongly toward delete unless the author returns with a better citation of his/her sources. Rossami (talk) 07:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I got two Google hits for this but neither of them seemed related. For landholdings in Eire lasting some centuries to royalty related to William the Conqueror, I'd want something more verifiable. Capitalistroadster 08:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - suspicious, reminds me of various noble pretenders and other people who have bought nonexistent "coat of arms" from various sources. Although apparently innocent now, reminds me too much of claims of Alexis Brimeyer and Oscar Hartzell. Writer may think the information genuine, but I have my doubts. - Skysmith 10:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Skysmith, Delete. Radiant! 10:09, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Two kids and their semi-factual fantasies. -- RHaworth 11:49, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

Keep: some of the websites behind it seem fairly genuine. And one of the blogs, imperialpress.blogspot.com, does offer a history section that positively identifies the link between William the Conqueror and Truelove Eyre through Edmund II. Go to the archives section, November of 2004, and read the article, "House of Eyre Came From House of Wessex." A number of other families established similar domains: the Angevins (not widely known), the Plantagenets (not widely known), the Hapbsburgs (not widely known among Americans), etc. Also, the Coat of Arms is real, that's on yahoo. History21 168.184.90.11 (talk · contributions)

The claims on that page are not backed up by any references or sources at all except a brief mention of "newly unearthed records". That doesn't "positively identify" anything, and indeed makes this whole business look even less credible. Foobaz·✐ 14:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep and Tweak: as an (enthusiatic) student of medieval studies, I have come across similar articles in stories over the years. Most of what this article says is accurate. However, I would recommend something; while most historians confirm that Truelove Eyre did exist, some of his ACTIONS are a bit murky, said to have originated in legend. (There is a similar story that says Truelove knew King Richard the Lionheart, a sheer impossibility due to the fact that they lived in separate centuries). The author should clarify that while Truelove is widely acknowledged to have founded the Eyre Dynasty, the WAY in which he did it is still disputed. Also, some source citations wouldn't be a bad idea; you can find the stuff, but it's inconvenient to search. Other than that, keep it. It would be a shame to get rid of an article that deals with one of the very few things able to last through the Medieval, Renaissance, Enlightenment, Industrial, and Modern Ages. 168.184.90.11 (talk · contributions)

I stand by what I said yesterday, and what the two people there have said completely proves my point. The whole Truelove Eyre thing must be rooted in some fact, otherwise the family crest (which we've all established existed) wouldn't bear the leg symbol. I went to imperialpress and found it quite helpful. The fact that there even IS controversy at the site that Hyperzonk cited shows that there is some sort of historical basis for Truelove Eyre. I agree with the other ones. Aside from Truelove, we now for a fact that this family exists (especially as many of the links listed on THIS PAGE take readers to sites detailing Eyre descendants now living in the US). The article is a website about a rich and influential family called "Eyre." We now know that that family is a factual part of history. So, not counting the Truelove Eyre thing (which should be modified to reflect his mythical status), the article should stay. 68.18.24.191 (talk · contributions)

Also, the "Eireland," thing is true, and so is the claim of the Gaelic name, "Eire," for Ireland. That had to come from somewhere. This article offers a good explanation.

  • Delete. Not verifiable. Rhobite 21:02, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone with the ability to open a history textbook or type the name Truelove Eyre into yahoo can verify this as true. The fact that this is even a debate stuns me. I have never known such historical ineptitude on the part of wikipedians before. Edit the Truelove thing, keep the rest, move on. 68.18.28.36 (talk · contributions)

  • Delete unless actual references provided - I don't appreciate being insulted because the author can't be bothered to provide references. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey, give the guy a break. It's not like historians have studied 1066 England much. Did anything important even happen back then? Rhobite 02:28, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utter tripe. Codswallop, I tell you, codswallop. GeorgeStepanek\talk 02:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Enthusiatic Keep and Edit This is a good article dealing with historical fact and should not be trashed, but I annoyed by several things. First of all, the author mentions "Leroy Heller's descendants," yet fails to reference some of the most important among them. To begin with, Leroy's son, Stanley Heller, the chairman of a Philadelphia bank and presumably the rightful heir to a resurrected Eyre Empire (should that unlikely day ever come about), is entirely skipped over. This leads me to believe that the author had a less than full knowledge of the subject matter. Stanley Heller is a significant descendant and should be listed. Secondly, another of Leroy's granddaughters holds a high level position for CDC and another works for a Democratic senator. Why haven't these things been included? Anyone with enough knowledge about this, please edit the article, or I will. I say, ANYONE WITH ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE, because it's not a widely known subject except in some royalist and medieval historical circles. So, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to fix this because you'll just make it worse. Elizabeth 168.184.90.11 (talk · contributions)

http://www.standard.net.au/~daneyre/Histeyre.htm There you go, read that. Elizabeth 168.184.90.11 (talk · contributions)

Okay, I'm a registered Wiki user with hundreds of edits to my name. I have no vote on this issue yet; I'd just like to provide some actual Google hits here, so as to clarify that this is NOT NONSENSE. It may not be notable, but it's not nonsense, okay? Sheesh. Note that many of these are for "Truelove who was henceforth called Ayre/Eyre", or similar phrasings. [1] (http://www.standard.net.au/~daneyre/Histeyre.htm), [2] (http://www.last-names.net/surname.asp?surname=Ayres), [3] (http://www.vmb-collection.com/A&DPages/AandDP20.html), [4] (http://www.meddows-taylor.com/Eyre.htm), [5] (http://www.cholet.us/Family%20Tree%20Index%20Pages/ayres_tree.htm), [6] (http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/pa/bucks/history/local/davis/davis15.txt) (a 100-year-old transcript which refers to "True Love" instead of "Truelove"), [7] (http://www.trueloves.info/history.html) (a history of the family name 'Truelove', and how it's associated with Eyre), and [8] (http://superjordans-home.com/MariahsAncestors/a23.htm). I'll grant that many of these have similar wording; this is apparently because they're all quoting the same centuries-old source. That source's reliability is another issue, of course. 168.184.90.11 (talk · contributions)

If this is a hoax, the hoaxsters have put an enormous amount of work into it over a long, long, long time. The ineptness of the page's defendants shouldn't be a factor in deciding whether it's worthy of being kept or deleted.DS 14:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) 168.184.90.11 (talk · contributions)

Please note that everything above this and below GeorgeStepanek's vote was added by an anonymous user, 168.184.90.11 (talk · contributions), the same IP who posted two other "votes" above. Thank you for providing sources, but they only establish the origin of a name, not the existence of an entire empire, or any of the other fantastic claims made in the article. Foobaz·✐ 20:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For the record, I'm annoyed that my comment from the VFD debate for Truelove Eyre was poached and transplanted into this debate (and done so ineptly, by someone who doesn't understand how WP allows us to sign our comments). DS 14:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Enthusiatic Keep and Edit This is a good article dealing with historical fact and should not be trashed, but I annoyed by several things. First of all, the author mentions "Leroy Heller's descendants," yet fails to reference some of the most important among them. To begin with, Leroy's son, Stanley Heller, the chairman of a Philadelphia bank and presumably the rightful heir to a resurrected Eyre Empire (should that unlikely day ever come about), is entirely skipped over. This leads me to believe that the author had a less than full knowledge of the subject matter. Stanley Heller is a significant descendant and should be listed. Secondly, another of Leroy's granddaughters holds a high level position for CDC and another works for a Democratic senator. Why haven't these things been included? Anyone with enough knowledge about this, please edit the article, or I will. I say, ANYONE WITH ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE, because it's not a widely known subject except in some royalist and medieval historical circles. So, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to fix this because you'll just make it worse. History21 (talk · contributions)

CZAR TO MAKE TRIP TO THE CAPITOL; FEBRUARY 16, 2005(OLD CALENDAR) The Imperial Compound is confirming today that Czar Arthur is planning on making a visit to Washington, D.C. this summer, where he will be given a VIP tour of the Capitol and will meet with several senators in the Senate Dining Room for luncheon. The czar's second cousin, Princess Alicia (a granddaughter of Senior Dowager Czar Leroy and a niece of Dowager Czarina Marie), who has overseen a Senate office for the last twelve years, will be host to her royal relation. Proponents of the Eyre Empire see it as an enormous step in the right direction. It will be Czar Arthur's first official trip since being crowned head of the resurrected financial dynasty in December. It will also serve as the first meeting between an Eyre monarch and a government representative since the spring of 1929, a milestone that many say is representative of the family's rejuvenation. Dowager Grand Duchess Augusta, mother to Grand Duchess Anna and Czarevna Mildred, was thrilled to hear the news. "This is the best thing that could have possibly happened," she said. It has also confirmed many in their thoughts that the empire is rising once more. “It’s like everything is happening at once,” said Grand Duchess Anna, referring to other recent events within the family (see articles below). The Imperial Compound has promised to keep the Imperial Press updated on these events.

Take a look at that. From imperialpress.blogspot.com. I've left a comment. It seems...hmm... 68.18.28.36 (talk · contributions)

Isn't that your own blog? The one you tried to spam on weblog? Please stop pretending that you're all these new people. Rhobite 22:22, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

No, that is my blog. I, for one, do not appreciate insinuations that I am A. trying to spam. or, B., writing under false pretenses. Not once have I tried to log in under two different names. In fact, I haven't provided any. And the above passage "I am a wiki user," was contributed by someone other than myself at a different area of this site who had the kindness to let me copy and paste. The moronic insistence at this sight (with the exception of some people, whom, I can assure you, are not myself in disguise) to deny historical fact because the majority of the history came from a murky time just makes me laugh to myself at the hypocrisy of the "contributors," who, in this case, have become, "detractors." Grow up and learn to properly use a computer. Also, a dictionary wouldn't help; you misspelled, "You're." comment by anonymous user 68.18.28.36

If you continue to change other people's votes and comments on this page, you'll be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is a pretty serious rule around here. Also, personal attacks are not allowed. Rhobite 01:21, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Robyn, if I find out that you are in any way responsible for this article, I will personally throw you down a deep, deep well where you will never be able to attend another Drama Club meeting again! Bwa ha ha ha! Just kidding. Please, though, don't exploit my family history with this "article." Love you, E 168.184.90.11 (talk · contributions)

Whomever is continuing to post that ridiculous, "Imperial Press," rubbish on this page, please stop. I have already had to remove it once from this site. It is completely unrelated to the dioscussion at hand and constitutes nothing more than a blatant and shameless attempt at spamming. Have the academic integrity to at least keep the argument based somewhat in reality. 168.184.90.11 (talk · contributions)

I just replaced it again. We frown on the removal of other people's comments, whether they're ridiculous or not. I also just signed all the anonymous posts. Hopefully this makes the discussion easier to follow. Foobaz·✐ 16:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • comment. I don't know what to think of the article but I do know that the name Éire come from Irish mythology, it is a variation on the name of the celtic goddess Ériu. The main square in Galway is called Eyre square but I don't know if it's named after a family or if it's another variation on Ériu. -- Lochaber 14:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as obvious hoax by sockpuppeting vandal. DreamGuy 21:34, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this awful mess... Nick04 23:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep new edits now talk about the Eyre FAMILY, not the Eyre EMPIRE. The Eyre Family did exist, while the Eyre Empire is entirely fictitious. Change title to, "Eyre Family." References provided prove the existence of Jehu Eyre as an actual person. This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.