Should the profile of John Hugh McLaughlin be broken in to three profiles?

Question

John Hugh McLaughlin (abt.1738-abt.1772) (McLaughlin-6209) appears to be a fabrication. His profile, which is based upon a FamilySearch profile that is in turn apparently based upon one of several individual genealogies, ties together birth in Londonderry Ireland, marriage in the Liverpool area and leaving orphans in the western reaches of colonial Virginia, with no evidence of how it was concluded that these events all concern the same individual.

I am inclined to feel that three isolated events are involved at that the state of credible research would best be captured by breaking John Hugh McLaughlin's profile into three, effectively reversing unsubstantiated merges made before the profile was originally introduced to WikiTree, but I don't see any precedent for doing such a thing. There seems to be much more encouragement for merging two profiles rather than breaking profiles up.  I need help and advice from more seasoned genealogists.

There is a record of the marriage of Hugh McLaughlin to Elizabeth Aspinwall in 1761 and it is included in the profile's sources.

There is also a historic record that a Hugh McLaughlin left two orphan sons, James (12) and Hugh (14) in 1772. Both would have been born before the marriage of Hugh and Elizabeth. I am still trying to nail down that source.

I cannot  locate any evidence that a John Hugh McLaughlin was born in Londonderry around 1738, There is also no evidence that  although the known sources all refer to a Hugh McLaughlin his name is actually John Hugh McLaughlin.

What I would propose is creating two new profiles, one for the Hugh McLaughlin who married Elizabeth Aspinwell and one for the Hugh McLaughlin who left orphans. I'd leave the existing profile of John Hugh McLaughlin associated with the year and place of his birth. Research notes would be included in each of the three profiles referring to the other two and to this G2G posting. Merges might be proposed and rejected.

There are also five children tied to the current profile, three of which were born before Hugh and Elizabeth were married.  How to straighten out their parentage  is also worthy of discussion.

Answer 1

I found a similar situation at the profile for John Allison (Allison-461).  I chose to remove the obviously incorrect parts and add notes regarding the situation.  At some point the changes need to be made or the errors will continue.  Check and see if the profile manager will work with you on making the changes.

Answer 2

Your suggested path seems logical - and an improvement on the current profile.  I suggest adding a note to any unsubstantiated info, in each of the three, that unsubstantiated info will be reduced to just being a note in that individuals record at the end of 12 more months without substantiation input......

Don McGlothlen