Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henrik Fazola

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The result was Speedy Keep per WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Domdeparis (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Fazola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and there seems to be no real claims to significance in the article. Concerning the sources one is a small Hungarian iron-working museum and the other is a web site dedicated to Hungarian metallurgy. I think we are a long way from proving notability and a search on the web turned up nothing of interest. Domdeparis (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Domdeparis (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I'm waffling here. The basis of a decent article is there. The subject was apparently a significant figure in metallurgy in his time and place, but there's no context given in the article to explain why that's important. The claims of notability are shaky, and Google Translate is an imperfect vehicle for evaluating either the content of the Hungarian sources or their reliability. (For instance, one source appears to be a personal web site. It might be written by an acknowledged expert, but I have no way of telling.) On the other hand, the article at hu.wp seems to be slightly more comprehensive, and there is related content at Commons that looks interesting. With some added context and additional sourcing, this could be exactly the sort of article about a once-important, now-obscure historical figure that Wikipedia should have. If no improvements are forthcoming, renomination for deletion should be considered. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment from what I can gather despite your weak keep you feel that if the article is not improved it should be nominated for deletion? Domdeparis (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I don't think there's any rush. It would be easier to build on what's already there than to start over from scratch or request undeletion later. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't understand your logic. If that were the way we looked at all articles none would be deleted on the off chance that someone at some time might find the sources necessary to prove notability. If he is not notable and there is nothing to prove that he was once-important historical figure as you say. There is nothing in the article that suggests he was anything more than a successful local artisan I really feel that there are not enough reliable sources to show that this person was an important enough figure to have his own page. The museum where he is just one of the people who are represented do not have their own wikipedia pages as far as I can see so I can't really see how they can be used as sources to prove the notability of one of the artisans that are exposed there. The sources are very very specialised and very local. Domdeparis (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my logic eludes you. There's an element of intuition involved, I suppose, but if you really want to know...on the rare occasion when I involve myself in AfD, I try to strike a reasonable balance between deletionism and inclusionism, but I'd prefer to err on the latter side when there's a hint of potential and there's no harm being done. I could have gone either way with this one, but I found no red flags suggesting that the article was misleading or erroneous. It occurred to me that the user who created it might check in, see the notice, and make some improvements. That's more likely to happen in, say, a month than in a week. If the decision here is to keep but no improvement happens, I'll be glad to !vote the other way. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created a month ago and was tagged by myself with a notability tag. Since it was created it has been modified 13 times by 5 different editors (not including myself and the creator) and no other sources were added. The creator is a SPA user that has made one contribution, creating this article, so it is unlikely that he will be back any time soon. I left the tag on in the hope that someone would find what I couldn't because I carried out a search and found nothing, I also did several translations of the sources to see if there was anything that had been missed to add to his notability, there was nothing. Did you do anything similaire before !voting keep? Or are you just using your intuition?Domdeparis (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similar, I think you mean. I think you didn't read what I wrote very carefully or you wouldn't ask that that last question. I could, in turn, ask you if it's just intuition that persuades you it's unlikely that the article's creator (who is not necessarily a SPA, by the way—that term often carries negative connotations, and you can't possibly know this about the creator unless you're psychic) will return. But I won't ask you that. You nominated the article for deletion, I exercised due diligence in checking it out before I offered my opinion, and now it's up to a third party either to apply the mop or not. Further discussion here seems unlikely to clarify the question for that third party, but my talk page is this way if you'd like to take me to task or thank me for my good-faith contribution or whatever. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copy-reading it's one of the problems that one encounters with spellcheck when one writes in 2 languages every day. As you say discussion is pointless as your due diligence turned up nothing else hence the use of intuition. An article doesn't have to be misleading or erroneous to be deleted but the sources have to prove notability and as you do not venture onto that terrain I can't discuss it any more and as you said in your first comment you are waffling and I don't know how to deal with that in a deletion discussion. Domdeparis (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep known for the Fazola gates and a number of other projects which are currently tourist sites and/or museum exhibits. A quick google search convinced me - which is hard to do on an 18th century figure (usually have to hit the books - and in this case potentially in Hungarian and German). Some online sources (I wouldn't dare use them in a seriously built article - need to use the sources behind the online sources): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. This one is probably a serious source - [8]. Multiple google-books hits - [9] - many are tourist guides, but not all, and the tourist guides date back a bit. If someone has created monuments that are viewed by the public 200+ years later - they are notable. Probably need to hit Hungarian sources for even better coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Summary - He has a few major tourist/cultural sites - namely the "Fazola Gates" in Eger - [10], and the "Fazola Furnace" (which is also a musuem) - [11][12]. Seems there is also a lake named after him - [13]. Some of his work + statues of him (one is displayed in a square in Eger) can be seen here - [14]. There is an observatory he built - [15]. Busts of him elsewhere - [16]. In addition it seems there are a number of other architecture sites (e.g. [17]) and some other pieces displayed elsewhere. some relevant books (besides the godzillion guide books mentioning the sites!) - [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. It seems like Fazola is regarded as the "father figure" of Hungarian metalsmithing and is a renowned artisan. Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, he was a pioneer in Hungarian industry, a street and school are also named after him. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment in light of the sources pulled up by User:Icewhiz I will withdraw my nomination. Domdeparis (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2017 (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.