Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyre family

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 - deleted - SimonP 14:42, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eyre family

More Eyrecruft. See the VFDs for Truelove Eyre and Eyre Empire. RickK 07:10, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is more or less a recreation of Eyre Empire, but slightly humbler. I did a little searching around during the downtime and the Bill Clinton relation seems very tenuous, especially since there are no Google hits for "Anne Eyre", "Anne Heller", or "Jehu Eyre" in conjunction with Clinton. Genealogy sites aren't great sources, either. Rhobite 08:36, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Carnildo 08:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - same nonsense as before in a different package - Skysmith 09:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep sources show that Jehu Eyre actually existed, as are provided on this site. See Truelove Eyre], which also provides resources. [[[Eyre Empire]]] is rubbish. This is the story of the real family as the existed in historical records.

• (Comments by 208.22.177.10) --DaveTheRed 18:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The above vote is by User:208.22.177.10, who has voted multiple times. Please stop voting, your votes will not be counted. Rhobite 17:08, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep new sources not only show that Jehu Eyre existed, but that he was instrumental in the Revolution (the Washington website, second source listed). I am interested by this,as I see it as a more realistic portrayal of an actual family. I've been searching,and I found something listing Jehu's brother Samuel as a member of the Philadelphia Committee of Correspondence. I'll list tha

• (Comments by History21) --DaveTheRed 18:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep EYRE, JEHU 1738-1781

Capt., Philadelphia "City Guard", Aug. 30, 1775; Capt. of Artillery, Philadelphia Brigade, Gen. John Cadwalader, June 5, 1777; Col., Philadelphia Artillery Battalion, Aug. 25, 1777; at Trenton, Princeton, Germantown, and Valley Forge; commanded the Forts at Mud Island and Billingsport, 1780; died in service.

                          EYRE, MANUEL 1736-1805

Member of the Committee of Correspondence of Philadelphia, 1775; Delegate to the Provincial Convention of PA, Jan. 23, 1775; Member of the PA Navy Board, 1777; Private, Capt. Jehu Eyre's Artillery Company, 1777; Capt. of a company of Artillery, First Brigade, Gen. John Cadwalader, 1777, Philadelphia Militia.

These both came from: http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/pa/1pa/military/revwar/sorrolla-g.txt

• (Comments by 208.22.177.10) --DaveTheRed 18:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you can find a reference for Clinton or the "numerous senators" mentioned, I'll change my vote. Otherwise this is merely a genealogical reference. Genealogy articles don't belong in Wikipedia. Rhobite 17:54, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Keep With or without Clinton, this family has (based on the evidence) played a fairly large role in American history (with special regards to the Revolution) and is significant in their own right because of their connection to the Truelove Eyre legend. I have heard that Bill Clinton had a strong Revolutionary War ancestry, and this would seem to fit. However, if definitive proof cannot be found then the article should be modified so that Clinton's name is not included. Connection to an American president is too huge a claim to pass off without verification. Other than the Clinton thing, the rest of the article is fine. Great job finding resources!

Okay, I've got something about Bill Clinton: "Furthermore, he is related to every Scottish monarch to the current British royal family. Clinton's royal roots include several medieval monarchs and Simon de Montford, a statesman and soldier under King Henry III. Through de Montford, Clinton is related to EVERY ancient aristocratic family in Britain today." This comes from: http://asis.com/~stag/uspres.html It's not a lot, but it is a small thread that leads me to believe that the Clinton-Eyre connection is genuine. If Clinton is related to every aristocratic family (I capitalized EVERY in the quotations to emphasize that point) in Britain, then he has some connection with the Eyres. The quote also mentions, "medieval monarchs," which would ostensibly be the House of Wessex through which the Eyres claim descent. Obviously more specific information must be found, but this is a start.

• (Comments by 208.22.177.10. Please sign your comments with a ~~~~ at the end of your message.) --DaveTheRed 18:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The above vote is by User:208.22.177.10, who has voted multiple times. Please stop voting, your votes will not be counted. Rhobite 17:08, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If you think that the individuals are notable, write articles about them. The family as a unit however is not notable. DaveTheRed 18:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep I respectfully disagree with that view. I think that the family as a unit (that is, all together) is far more significant than any of its members (Truelove Eyre notwithstanding) alone. For example, we have established that Jehu Eyre helped build boats and give money to the Revolution, and that his brother Manuel was a member of the Committee of Correspondence. Obviosuly, their work was highly influential, but neither one is particularly famous. Separate articles would be immediately debunked as, "non notable," and it's ,much easier to just include every significant Eyre on one page. The Bill Clinton thing sounds like it would be right, but I haven't been able to find anything that confirms it, so it should be taken out. I hope that someone else can locate something about him. It appears that Jehu Eyre had a lot of children beside this one daughter, perhaps it's through another child. Liz1848 Hi, same person again. I just went over to Truelove Eyre and was reading the Talk Page that debated whether or not the legend was genuine. I just wanted to add that the Truelove Eyre article was widely denounced by Wikipedians following the Eyre Empire garbage, but that evidence eventually proved the legend to be verifiable. It now appears as if the Truelove article is going to stay, namely because so many Wikipedians changed their votes. I hope that this article is given the same consideration. I have found that there are some people here who are a bit, "delete happy," i.e., they attack things just to attack. Come now. I thought that our goal here was to report the facts. This is history, and, HISTORY BACKED UP BY REFERENCED FACT. Liz1848

• The above User's only edits are to this page. Please note that Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. If you want to write articles about noteworthy individuals, please do so. But remember that they should be noteworthy. RickK 22:29, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. If you go back far enough, everyone is related to everybody...Is this genealogycruft? Lectonar 07:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• PS: If you created an account, you could include it in your talkpage Lectonar 07:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Dave. And WP:WIN. Radiant_* 09:44, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Rick is right. If no one has any objections, I am going to edit the article so that the part about Bill Clinton is ommitted. I will postpone doing this to allow for any kind of debate on the issue, but I've got to say that the evidence just isn't there. Liz1848 has a point, too, though; the family as a whole is notable and historically confirmed, as Truelove Eyre and the talk surrounding it show. As the politicalgraves website shows, the Eyres have significant political connections. This family should be included on wikipedia.

This vote is by User:208.22.177.10, who has now voted to keep this article three times. Please stop voting, your votes will not be counted. Rhobite 17:08, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep In the face of the overwhelming evidence (the profusion of websites detailing the family), I can reach no other conclusion but that the Eyres were a family of great importance, both politically and socially. Unless anyone can find a website stating, "all of these other websites are completely false, and here is the evidence of that," I find no reason that this article should not be kept. bit89medieval

This is bit89medieval's first contribution. Rhobite 17:08, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

It may be my first contribution, but that does not detract from the legitimacy of said contribution. To 208.22.177.10: you can set up a user account by going to the upper right hand corner of your computer and clicking, "Log In." It's pretty self-explanatory after that. By the way, there are ten websites referenced on this page alone about this supposedly insignificant family! If their influence was really that miniscule, why are so many people talking about them? There is no reason to create so many sites about a group of entirely unimportant people.

• Not a single person here has accused this family of being insignificant. What we are saying is this article does not belong in an encyclopedia. It isn't of interest to general readers of an encyclopedia, except as a geneaolgical resource. Since Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, the article should go. As you've pointed out, there are much better genealogical resources than Wikipedia. Rhobite 18:19, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Normally I wouldn't bother voting on this but delete just to counter this silliness of adding obviously self-interested genealogical cruft. Very few families merit coverage as families. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:56, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The fact that we are even discussing this is amazing to me. --Woohookitty 08:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep for obvious reasons. This could be helpful to anyone who's ever had to do a history report on the American Revolution, or on influential American families. Perhaps this should be placed under "Important Families of the Revolution," or, "Important American Families," or even incorporated into, "American Revolution," something like that. The article is certainly noteworthy, though. I think that wikipedia would lose an asset if this article was removed (it's certainly a very interesting part of American history without the stink of uncertainty that accompanies legend), though it seems that some rather narrowminded people are bent on doing just that. Therefore, I would like to pose a question: if we absolutely cannot accept this entirely legitimate article, where should it go? Does anyone have know of any websites where this could be posted, or any other area of wikipedia where it could find a home? I remain steadfast in my opnion that this article SHOULD BE KEPT.

Above vote by User:63.27.64.45. Rhobite 18:28, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Keep The fact that we are even discussing this amazes me, too.

This vote is by User:Frannie45. User's first edit. Please disregard as a probable sockpuppet. Rhobite 21:44, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep Besides referencing every other keep vote on this page, I draw my evidence from the listed websites dedicated to the Eyres. If any one family is notable, this one is it. They remind me of an eighteenth century version of the Kennedeys. joan53

User's fourth edit, no edits before today. Please disregard as a probable sockpuppet. Rhobite 21:44, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Definitely and without question. The petty arguments against this article remind me of the 24/7 nonsense. nanaszczebrzeszyn

User's first and only edit. Please disregard as a probable sockpuppet. Rhobite 21:44, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Keep I've seen quite a few articles of blatant self-promotion (70 Foot Century), but this just isn't one of them. To be perfectly honest, it seems silly that this is being debated. What more could possibly be done to prove this family's significance? whoknew?

User's has made nine edits; all to VfD pages, and all today. Please disregard as a probable sockpuppet. Rhobite 21:44, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Vote For Rhobite to Get His Facts Straight whoa, there, cowboy. First of all, this is NOT my first and only edit. You'll want to check your records a bit more carefully before you, you know, make a fool of yourself be proclaiming, "Only one edit!" As I said, not so. And I would just chalk it up to a mechanical error, but your disrespect has me the teensiest bit riled. For you see, not only are you incorrect in your assertion about my edits, you have also impugned my integrity by suggesting that I am a, "sock puppet," which, I can assure you, I am not. I take history quite seriously and do not appreciate an insinuation that I would somehow try to twist it. And, given your incompetence in reporting my number of edits, are we sure that all of these accounts were created on the same day, as you've said, or are you wrong about that, too? nanaszczebrzeszyn

I apologize if my tone offended you. However, I'm clearly right here: As shown on your list of contributions, voting to keep this article was your first (and only, at the time) edit. Please find something more productive to do with your time on Wikipedia. Rhobite 02:38, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and ignore ridiculous sockpuppetry. Lacrimosus 03:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Genealogy vanity. Bogus votes. (Are we going to wait until every member of the vanity casts a vote here?) Delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep Sock puppetry aside (I'm sure that nanaszcz... is really offended), this article seems to have historical merits. There are about ten or eleven websites listed here. In spite of my annoyance with these vandals, I simply can't find any real reason to delete this article. Sorry.

Above vote by User:69.72.27.233. Rhobite 21:09, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Keep the family is more than notable. SusanaeIII

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.