Talk:Patrick McCormack

Notability?

Per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBASIC, notability of people is based on significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are intellectually independent of each other. The notability of this subject appears to derive from the Irish History Podcast blog post which asks if, because their birth and death cert appeared to reflect different genders, McCormack was Ireland's "first recorded transgender person?". Even the blogger/podcaster acknowledges that no other records exist and that "Little else is known" about the subject as "records are lacking". All the other sources appear to be based upon (and most refer back to) this original blog post. The sources are therefore not "intellectually independent of each other". At best, perhaps as an WP:ATD/R, this title could be redirected to LGBTQ history in Ireland. Where the subject is mentioned in passing. Otherwise, and as per the original WP:A7 deletion log it is not clear how the text or sources indicate the significance of the subject. (While simply existing, as (possibly?) a transgender person in 19th-century Ireland may be interesting, this isn't the same as being notable...) Guliolopez (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Bump. Unless, in my own WP:BEFORE, I overlooked sources which discuss the subject in depth (and ideally independent of the podcaster's research into apparent mismatch between gender in birth and death certs), I don't see how notability is established. And will be opening an AFD to determine consensus on next steps (likely deletion or redirection). Guliolopez (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment. OK. I'm going to open the AfD. As, while I note that the notability tag was removed on the basis that the subject is named in a book, the actual mention is not significant coverage. In the book of essays (on page 229, in Sara Philips' submission titled "Out is a very dangerous place: the emergence of the trans movement in Ireland"), Philips includes a list of a dozen or so names and approximate DOBs, including the subject's name/DOB:

"Names such as Albert Cashier (1843-1915), Dr James Barry (c.1789-1865), Edward De Lacy Evans (1830-1901), Patrick McCormack (1821-71), John Murphy (c.1800-30), Marianne Weldon (c.1863), John Bradley (c.1889), Charlotta Gibbons (1849-90), James Walker (c.1836), Margaret King (1773-1835), John Coulter (1834-85), Michael Dillon (1915-62) are easily researched but many more exist.

This is not significant coverage or materially contributory to notability. I also note that dates in this list would appear to erode the "first recorded trans person" assertion. As James Barry (c.1789–1865) and John Murphy (c.1800-1830) were assigned female at birth. Barry, quite notably/clearly, living and being known to live as a male (while being assigned/known as female at birth) decades prior to McCormack? Guliolopez (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you to ̊̊Guliolopezfor extensive and clearly careful work on this article and across Irish-related Wikipedia more broadly - it is genuinely appreciated. I should note that this article was worked on during a Wiki Loves Pride in-person editing event that we organised recently, in partnership with the National Library of Ireland and the Irish Queer Archive. I am disclosing this in the interest of transparency, and I want to be clear that my comments here are based solely on the sourcing and notability merits as I understand them and also my perspective as a historian, understanding (lack of) representation in historic record.

I would like to offer a few points for consideration in this AfD discussionː

On the question of sources deriving from a single original - this is worth examining in context. The systematic erasure of LGBTQ+ history, and particularly transgender history, is not incidental. It is structural. The records that do exist for figures like Patrick McCormack are sparse precisely because of intersecting factors: class (McCormack was a labourer, not a professional or public figure whose life would have generated documentary trace, like Barry), gender nonconformity in a period when such identity was criminalised and socially suppressed, and the broader erasure of working-class Irish lives from the historical record, compounded by the devastation of An Gortadh Mór/the Famine period. The absence of extensive independent sourcing is itself a product of that erasure and it does not indicate that McCormack is not a historically significant figure.

On James Barryː Barry is an important figure, but Barry's life was lived primarily in England and within the British military establishment. Barry's relative visibility in the historical record is itself a function of class and institutional position. The framing of McCormack as the first recorded Dublin-born transgender man is defensible precisely because Barry's life was not lived in Ireland. These are not competing claims.

On the Sara Phillips essay in The Politics of Gender and Sexuality in Modern Ireland (Four Courts Press, 2024) a peer-reviewed academic publication from a reputable Irish academic press. Phillips names McCormack explicitly in the context of a scholarly discussion of the emergence of the trans movement in Ireland. The mention is brief, but academic mention in a peer-reviewed volume is a meaningful threshold. The fact that Phillips draws on the same underlying records as other sources does not diminish the independence of the scholarly analysis - she is making an academic argument, not simply repeating a blog post.

On notability more broadly, the question of whether simply existing as a possibly transgender person in 19th-century Ireland constitutes notability is, I would argue, framed too narrowly. McCormack is named in peer-reviewed academic literature specifically in the context of trans history in Ireland. That academic attention is itself evidence of notability, even where the primary records are thin. The thinness of those records is the historical injustice we are attempting to partially redress.

I would also suggest, regardless of the outcome of this AfD, that McCormack's (known) information be preserved on Wikidata, and that consideration be given to a broader article on transgender people in Ireland by century, which would allow McCormack to be documented in context with the sources that do exist. I will tag @Alt irish historian here for this.

Thank you for considering these points. Amy Uí Ríordáin (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note @Amy Uí Ríordáin. In terms of:

"a few points for consideration in this AfD discussion". This isn't the AfD discussion. This is the article talk page. The AfD discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick McCormack. You would ideally raise any arguments for retention there. Ideally based on Wikipedia norms.
"The absence of extensive independent sourcing is itself a product of that erasure and it does not indicate that McCormack is not a historically significant figure". While I understand the point about records of LGBTQ+ people (in particular working class people in 19th century Ireland), I personally don't see evidence that the subject is a historically significant figure. Wikipedia's test for notability (historical significance) is the existence of reliable/independent sourcing which allow for expansion beyond a very short piece of text. We can't infer or apply a qualifier that, had 19th-century Ireland been a different place, more sources might have existed. And work from that premise. We have to live in this timeline. Mores the pity.
"McCormack is named in peer-reviewed academic literature". Simply being named in academic literature is not sufficient. It just isn't. No matter the context. Hundreds of thousands (millions) of people are named in academic literature. Some in more than one paper. They do not all meet the project's notability criteria for people.

The Wikipedia criteria for notable people is generally agreed to be that the person has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. In this case:

"significant coverage". Is not met. Certainly the Phillips essay, which simply lists McCormack's name and DOB in a list of other names/DOBs, is not "significant coverage".
"in multiple published secondary sources". Might be met. Although it's arguable that four webpages is a bare minimum for "multiple".
"reliable". Broadly met. Certainly the Phillips essay would seem reliable.
"intellectually independent of each other". Is not met. And critically so. As all (even Phillips) appear based on the same blogger/podcaster's 2018 post.
"and independent of the subject". Met.

While I understand the concern about under-representation, Wikipedia follows the sources, it isn't a place to address under-reporting and is, by design, supposed to be "behind the curve".... Guliolopez (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you to Guliolopez for the analysis, and to Alt irish historian for the additional context - mutiple of those points sharpen the notability case.

To be clear: I am not attempting to use Wikipedia to right great wrongs or to document information that lacks reliable sourcing. I understand and accept those policies.

What I would add to Elliot's points is this: the question of intellectual independence looks different when you understand that the primary records are themselves the totality of what survived. Phillips (2024) is not repeating a blog post - she is a historian making an independent scholarly argument from the same scarce primary record, because that record is all there is. The scarcity is the structural condition, not a sourcing failure.

Transgender history on English Wikipedia has no Ireland section - a gap that is itself an instance of the type of systemic bias Wikipedia acknowledges. I am proposing to create that section, within which McCormack (and the many other trans individuals in Ireland) can be documented accurately alongside Albert Cashier, James Barry, and others from the same scholarship. That reframes the question from "is McCormack individually notable?" to "is transgender history in Ireland notable?" - and the answer to the second question is clearly yes.

I have posted a full proposal at the AfD. I will begin drafting the Ireland section for Transgender history on my personal Wiki account over the next few days and welcome input from anyone with relevant expertise.

Amy Uí Ríordáin (talk) Amy Uí Ríordáin (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Guliolopez for an in-depth analysis but I have to agree with @Amy Uí Ríordáin. This page was created because a) Barry, Ireland's "first" recorded trans man, did not live in Ireland at all during his male-presenting life, b) McCormack is notable as the first recorded AFAB person who transitioned and maintained the male identity throughout his life, c) McCormack is an LGBT+ Gorta Mór/Great Famine survivor, which we have minimal record of, d) McCormack is a 17th Century identifiable LGBT+ individual based on current definitions, e) McCormack is an LGBT+ working class individual in the 17th Century in Ireland, which we have minimal records from due to discriminatory education practices, and f) the naming of significant trans individuals in the Philips essay lists McCormack as a trans individual in a verifiable source. I would argue that removal of this page absolutely ignores the specifications that make this case notable in a post-colonial country's history. Alt irish historian (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I really don't understand how "lived in Ireland for whole life" or "lived in Ireland through famine years" have any bearing on notability. I really don't. Millions of people did the same. Including, presumably, many LGBTQ+ people. If they didn't, none of us would be here now. Please raise your points at the AfD discussion. Ideally, as above, based on policy. And, ideally, with additional sourcing. As the existing five sources (one passing name-mention in one book and four webpages with the same 40-words of text based on the same 180-word blogpost) do not establish notability. AfD contributors might also wish to review WP:ATA and WP:CITINGGREATERPROBLEMS. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The notability is in having lived as a man, while being AFAB, in colonised Ireland which could have led to legal consequences, ignoring discrimination and physical danger if he was discovered, additionally as a working class individual who was LGBT+ during this time, as well as being a working class individual who survived an Gorta Mór, of which we already have very little record, let alone LGBT+ working class individuals who survived an Gorta Mór. It was an orchestrated famine that specifically targeted lower-income individuals, as well as gutting the day labourer as a job class for years, of which LGBT+ people are historically likely to be a part of due to discrimination. Please don't bite the newbie, I am learning. Alt irish historian (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks again for the input. In terms of:

"notability is in having lived as a man (when it was dangerous/illegal/uncommon to do so). There's no consensus that this is a notability criteria. If it were, people currently living as male, while being AFAB, in places where it is dangerous/illegal/uncommon to do so (like Afghanistan or Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or Russia) would be inherently notable. There is no community consensus that this is the case. Significant coverage in reliable/independent sources would be required to establish notability. And, even at that, if that coverage all related to one aspect of the person's life (such as gender), then WP:BLP1E would be implicated.
"It was an orchestrated famine that specifically targeted lower-income individuals". That the famine was orchestrated (and specifically targeted lower-income individuals) is WP:OR. And of unclear relevance to anyone's notability. If it were, then all lower-income individuals (including cisgender people), who lived through the famine period, would "inherit" increased notability. There is no community consensus that this is the case.
"don't bite the newbie, I am learning". Where did I "bite the newbie"? I have operated entirely under the presumption of good faith and have responded to all points (including to provide guidance and direction to the applicability guidelines) without hostility and as clearly and politely as possible. None of my edits or comments involve "biting". I have attempted to address all issues directly (rather than deleting or reverting), I waited 4 days (after explaining the concerns and undertaking an extensive WP:BEFORE and adding everything I could find to the title) before opening the AfD discussion thread, I have not "piled on" (and only responded to comments when prompted) and have not used intensifiers and commented only on content and never on any single editor or edit. If my focus has been on the factual, and this comes across as "cold" or "unemotive", then that is due to the sensitivity of the topic. Not (intended) impoliteness.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Avoid excessive Wikipedia jargon. When linking to policies or guidelines, do so in whole phrases, not wiki shorthand.
Templated messages may seem unwelcoming. Consider writing a personalised one.
Avoid filling a newly created page with maintenance templates or nominating it for deletion. Wait a few days to see how the page evolves first. If moving an article to draft "for improvement", do not do so without saying what improvements are needed.

This is not to attack, but explain - the messages felt incredibly overwhelming for a newbie and had a lot of terms that I was unfamiliar with due to lack of experience, the template of the message felt very inapproachable, and it would have also been helpful to have been told that pages for deletion would be retained separately and could be appealed which is also recommended in the biting page. Thank you for linking me the page so I also know how to not bite newbies newer than me. /gen, pos Alt irish historian (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)