Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McGhee Family

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 no consensus. Certainly does need referencing better. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McGhee Family

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

questionable notability. Only reference is to electric Scotland, a site where information is often published from emails. Some sections are contradictory and confusing e.g. "the McGhees were never a "Clan" as such, and therefore the title of "Chief" was never used." yet goes on to list a bunch of these none existent "Chiefs". Your ever Czar Brodie (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Seems to be quite a large number of primary and secondary sources available to confirm the article. Quite an interesting aspect of Scottish history I didn't know about. Certainly the article needs a fair amount of work and sources added. Yip, it's all good. scope_creep (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. As a professional historian with expertise in DNA studies, I can unequivocally say that information presented in an article on the McGhee Family cannot be attributed to reliable sources. There is no way to determine if one McGhee Family is related to another McGhee Family, short of a DNA study. Simply because an individual shares the same or a similar surname with another does not establish a mutual genetic or patrilineal descent (or ancestry). Inclusion of this article could feasibly get out of hand with every McGhee on the internet now finding a way into an article on Wikipedia. After all, McGhees are now notable! In reality, this just becomes indiscriminate information with no foreseeable end in sight. Besides, notability is not inherited. And the reference(s) are wholly unreliable. Cindamuse (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Who cares if they're all related to one another or not. The sloppy writing can be fixed... This is ultimately Scottish clan history and is fully worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Carrite (talk), member of Clan Macpherson, 04:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, thanks for the input. I do most of my editing on Scottish clans and noted that clan branches, septs and family names are also gaining momentum in the same style as the official clan articles. My question is: should we draw the line, or allow articles of any Scottish family as notable, regardless of their affiliation to clans? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2010 (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.