Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truelove Eyre

 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 ambiguous. I count 5 clear "delete" votes and 7 clear "keep" votes (but 2 of them were from anon or very new users and are discounted). Even after discounting the anon votes, this discussion fails to reach a clear concensus to delete. The decision defaults to keep. Rossami (talk) 00:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Truelove Eyre
Hoax / not verifiable. See Votes for deletion/Eyre Empire. Rhobite 21:04, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm reiterating my nomination to delete this article. All the new references are genealogy sites, which can have a tendency to accept and repeat unverified information. Some of the sites even admit that this story is apocryphal. Rhobite 19:15, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * You are correct to state that the story is apocryphal. I personally believe that a centuries-old legend is as least as notable as, for example, the Drug urban legends included in Wikipedia, but you have every right to disagree. GeorgeStepanek\talk  21:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The author clearly states that the subject of the article is mythological and openly acknowledges that many sources have it to be pure legend. While wikipedia may have no room for a man who was never born, we certainly do record myths and folklore that achieve particular popularity. This one has obviously circulated for hundreds of years (see, Eyre Empire). Also, keep in mind, while there is no clear historical precedent to prove his existence, there is also nothing with which to disprove it. No premise for deletion. Maybe relist as, "Legend of Truelove Eyre." History 21
 * It's irritating when the author of an article pretends that he's an innocent bystander. You ARE the author. Rhobite 00:54, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - A google search for "Truelove Eyre" produces utterly nothing. I suspect it is in fact a vanity (if you can call it that) page written by an "Eyre", or whoever owns the page it links to - a "fictional genealogy" if you will. Complete rubbish, and a hoax. And to comment on the points the user "History 21" raises - "while there is no clear historical precedent to prove his existence, there is also nothing with which to disprove it". Well, I'm not a historian, but perhaps you'd care to tell me how William the Conqueror granted Truelove "significant lands in Ireland", when we wasn't in control of Ireland at the time? Nick04 22:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, changed vote following extensive rediting, and realising some of my comments out of line. Nick04 08:52, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - yes, I know I've changed my vote twice, but having only just glanced over at the Eyre Empire article, I suspect I've beein hoaxed...and even if you discount the Eyre Empire, the article as it stands now (even after extensive revision) is nothing more than a) family legend, and b) genealogy, which don't belong here. Nick04 22:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I have put a lot of work into totally rewriting this article to remove the Eyre Empire-type rubbish that the original author invented, and to base it very soundly on the wealth of legitimate references that have subsequently been found and cited. Please do not make a superficial decision based on an entirely different article. GeorgeStepanek\talk  00:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nick04, google has no hits for Truelove Eyre, but yahoo does (quite a few actually). You should always try BOTH engines when doing a search, especially if you can't find anything on google at first. Secondly, Truelove Eyre's existence or nonexistence is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Only the legend ITSELF is relevant, as it is widely well known tale in Britain. If there was a widely known "Legend of the Bat Boy," I expect that wikipedia would have an article on it. "In 19th Century Romania, a false but highly believable story circulated...blah blah blah...this folklore has become a part of Romanian history and lives on to this day." You get the picture. The story itself is famous, that's what matters. But just as an aside, the Gaelic name for Ireland is, "Eire." That's no coincidence. Go to yahoo. History21

Keep thank you, Nick04, but I'm serious about what I said.
 * You don't get to vote twice. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 00:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - unverifiable. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 00:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know that I don't get to vote twice, I was just emphasizing what I had said before. You all don't seem to understand what I'm saying here: nothing about Truelove Eyre is verifiable. But the fact that a legend surrounds him IS verifiable. It is the LEGEND that we are reporting. For all I know, William the Conqueror could have falled from his horse because he saw a shiny coin on the ground--I DON'T CARE. The story, however, is a significant part of folklore and should be shown on wikipedia. It is made perfectly clear in the article that the story is largely thought to be myth. History21


 * Delete. Even legends are verifiable: you can verify that people believed them at the time. This has not been done for Truelove Eyre. I don't consider a family album to be a sufficiently authoritative citation for such a supposedly significant historical or mythological figure. GeorgeStepanek\talk  02:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The supplied references (below) now convince me that this is a notable and verifiable legend. I have done a major cleanup of the article and removed the spurious claims, particularly regarding the "Eyre Empire". The remaining facts are well supported by the references listed. Despite the utterly bizarre behaviour of the author, this is a actually a notable subject. GeorgeStepanek\talk  01:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable, probably hoax, as the Eyre Empire nonsense shows.  RickK 05:58, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * The new edits don't change my vote. It's still non-notable, bogus genealogy and not of encyclopedic interest.  RickK 05:37, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not verifiable with no Google hits and no reliable reference from a paper source cited. Capitalistroadster 10:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Change to keep because of George Stepanek's edits. Well done George. Capitalistroadster 07:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, largely because the Eyre Empire ridiculousness has made it impossible for me to assume good faith, and so much of the article is unverifiable. Foobaz &middot; &#10000;  00:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep because of GeorgeStepanek's edits. Foobaz &middot; &#10000;  01:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Legend verified and Once again, legend verified. 168.184.90.11 01:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * 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., , , , ,  (a 100-year-old transcript which refers to "True Love" instead of "Truelove"),  (a history of the family name 'Truelove', and how it's associated with Eyre), and . 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. 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)
 * Ahh, that's better, GeorgeStepanek. Pleasure working with you; I now vote keep. DS 03:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * 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. 68.18.28.36 09:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep . Abstain KEEP --Sn0wflake 23:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am changing my vote one more time due to a simple fact: this article is a legend, yes. But WHO SAYS legends are not Wikipedia material? I have seen such ridiculous articles get away from VfD's axe... so even whitout full knowledge of this article's subject, I can't let it be deleted. Do you all remember that rule? Yeah, that one... assume the best? It's part of the Wikipedia's utopia, and it's one that we should take into consideration here. I hereby change my vote to Keep and it will stay that way. Please rethink your Delete votes. --Sn0wflake 00:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Nobody says that legends are not Wikipedia material. Hell, many of the pages I work on here are about legends. But this particular alleged legend, strongly linked to hoax articles whose only claims to verification are on non-authoritative web pages that could very well be passing off fake lore as folklore, isn't notable and is very likely to be completely bogus. DreamGuy 19:28, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I just read the link provided by 168.184.90.11, and i'm starting to think it sounds like Truelove was the man's old surname, i.e. his name was Bob Truelove, and he was rechristened Bob Eyre. This would explain why "Truelove Eyre" gets no Google hits. Does this sound reasonable to anyone else? Foobaz &middot; &#10000; 06:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * In medieval Europe people didn't really have surnames. They were indentified by their occupation (e.g. "John the Smith"), their location (e.g. "John of York") or their nickname (e.g. "Edmund Ironsides"). "Eyre" was just a nickname. "Truelove" may have been another nickname: it certainly sounds like one. GeorgeStepanek\talk  21:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * So, if we can't even verify that a man with the name "Truelove Eyre" existed, why are we voting to keep an article about him? Foobaz &middot; &#10000;  22:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Did King Arthur exist? Certainly not under that name, but it's the name that we know him by now. Likewise Truelove Eyre appears to be the best extant name for this individual (if he existed). GeorgeStepanek\talk  23:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems to me the only people who call him Truelove Eyre are the people using the four IPs involved in this and the Eyre Empire article & discussion. Surely the article is valuable, but i don't believe it belongs at its current name, nor should it mention the name Truelove Eyre, since i highly doubt that was the brave man's name. How about moving the article to Eyre legend? Foobaz &middot; &#10000;  00:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep, that sound like a good idea. It agrees with the quote that "hereafter instead of Truelove be called Eyre". But can we rename the article before the VfD has run its course? GeorgeStepanek\talk  00:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One cannot verify the Truelove Eyre legend without thus verifying the Eyre Empire itself, as it is said to have stemmed from him. Therefore, I counsel patience and caution before recklessly acquiescing to the validity of either article. 168.184.90.11 (talk &middot; contributions)


 * Delete - Obviously, this is at best a legend, and it doesn't seem to be a notable legend at that, as a google search reveals. Furthermore, a legend which people insist 'may be true' is what is generally called a hoax or, when pressed, a conspiracy theory. There is no verifiable fact at all in the article as it stands, even after the edits. This Truelove is not mentioned by anyone (that I was able to find) as the founder of the Ayre or Eyre families, and the Eyre family crest does not feature a leg in armor. Finally, to say that 'historians cannot definitively confirm whether or not Truelove actually existed' gives his legend far too much credit; historians actually appear not to care at all. Squibix 19:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I have rephrased these statement to better reflect the references. I have also listed the eight references that DS found, which appear to be independent of each other at least back to 1900, if not earlier. If it is a hoax or a conspiracy, then it's a very old one, and certainly nothing to do with the Eyre Empire nonsense (although it has been a bit of a job removing that author's ludicrous inventions). I urge you to take a look at the references, and reconsider your position. GeorgeStepanek\talk  03:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - At worst this is a hoax that has managed to confuse some of the editors voting above. At best it's horribly nonnotable and unverifiable. Either way it doesn't belong here. DreamGuy 01:00, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * How can you say that it is "unverifiable" if you haven't taken a look at the references? I am getting rather frustrated with opinions like this, that clearly been made only on the most cursory examination of the evidence at hand. Please read the article closely, compare it to the source texts, and then (if you are still unconvinced) provide a reasoned explanation of why you think this subject is invalid. GeorgeStepanek\talk   00:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * George, have you compared Eyre Empire and Votes for deletion/Eyre Empire? THAT is why people want this nonsense deleted.  The whole thing is of a piece.  It's all a hoax.  This person, even if he were a real person, does not qualify for an encyclopedia article,  And are you REALLY trying to claim that Ireland got its name because of a person whose last name was Eyre?  RickK 00:55, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Truelove Eyre, as I have rewritten it, does not state that Ireland got its name from a man named Eyre. It is not "of a piece" with Eyre Empire. Forget Eyre Empire. I have totally rewritten the article based on a significant number of independent, verifiable references. Please address your comments to those references, and to the article as it stands. Can you not see how much of a logical fallacy it is to say "article A is rubbish, therefore article B should be deleted" if articles A and B have different authors? I am now the author of Truelove Eyre, not the idiot person who wrote Eyre Empire. GeorgeStepanek\talk  01:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Those links you gave above are personal pages and sites that allow the gneral public to add info about their families. There's nothing authoritative about them that would make them reliable sources, and they seem like a relatively easy way to slip bogus family history out onto the web. But even if this were true, it's not encyclopedic material. It's completely and utterly nonnotable, and even if you give it the benefit of the doubt there, it's fringe nature added to the very real likelihood that someone is out there pulling your leg and we have an article that needs to be removed. Sorry you took time rewriting something so insignificant, but that was your choice and I don't think editors here should vote to keep it just because you trust those Internet sites you went to and rewrote something that undeniably started as a hoax article. The submitter wants you to believe that Ireland was named after his ancestor for crying out loud... can you say "untrustworthy source"? And is it really so hard for you to believe that if that person took the time to post the hoax articles here that he didn;t do the same on those personal pages and geneology sites that let people claim whatever they want about their families? Come on. DreamGuy 19:39, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your assertion that these "sites that allow the general public to add info about their families" is simply not true. This, for example, is the Chapter 15 of "The History of Bucks County, Pennsylvania from the discovery of the Delaware to the present time by W.W.H. Davis, 1876 and 1905 editions" which runs to over 15,000 words (not to mention the other 54 chapters). The idea that someone has simply invented this mass of material is, frankly, ludicrous. Have you even bothered to take a look at these sources? Rhobite is correct in pointing out that the story is apocryphal, but it is a centuries-old legend, not something that a contemporary individual has put together. GeorgeStepanek\talk  21:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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.