Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandor Fekete

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 merging into Blackwells Mills Canal House seems reasonable for now. Shii (tock) 01:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandor Fekete

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

Fails WP:BIO. Redirect to Blackwells Mills Canal House (where he worked) rejected by article creator. The article lacks reliable, independent indepth sources. The only indepth source, [1], was written by the Meadows Foundation, a barely notable society that has restored the house. The other sources, mainly local ones, only contain passing mentions like this one in sections that are about the home, not about this person. Fram (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge into Blackwells Mills Canal House and redirect. mmm, I don't like to have to undo careful and enthusiastic work, but the subject of this article is not notable: the citations (per nom) are minor mentions that fail to establish [[WP:BIO]. A redirect would be a sensible way out here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 7 references including an entry in Brahms encyclopedia and a two page biography here. I think you are confusing the snippets used to verify a fact quoted in the citations with the entire reference. WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." It doesn't say unless that source is the Meadows Foundation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not confusing anything, thank you. The 2 page biography is the one I gave as "the only indepth source", and it clearly isn't independent of the subject (or really a very reliable source), a local historian interviewing the family of the owner of a building his local historical society has restored. The "Brahms encyclopedia" is the book "Franklin Township", published by the Franklin Township Public Library... and the entry is this. I am not looking at snippets, I look at the actual sources used in the article. Fram (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subject is Sandor Fekete, so a self-published autobiography would not be independent of him. The Meadows Foundation is independent of him as are the other sources. If I gather 10 facts from 7 sources they have the same depth as 10 facts from a single source and that depth would be 10 facts. Mathematically they have the same depth. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not really how it works. You don't even have "ten facts from seven sources", you have one or two facts from six sources (name, year of death, occupation at time of death), all in passing, and a biography from one single source, the Meadows Foundation one. Considering that all sources but that one are really only interested in the house, not in the last occupant, a redirect to the house is the logical and normal solution. Fram (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Blackwells Mills Canal House and redirect. If reliable information about other past occupants is found, that could be also be added to the house article. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Richard Arthur Norton has merged the whole article into the Blackwells Mills Canal House during this AfD. This creates a rather strange article there, with more info on the last inhabitant than on the actual house, and also goes against Wikipedia:Merging, "While mergers are generally not proposed (as well as discouraged) from the onset of Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions". Fram (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks a bit strange, and it was jumping the gun. I suggest we edit the merged section down to:

"Sandor Fekete (1879-1970) was the last bridge tender. He was born in Hungary, emigrating via Antwerp, Belgium to New York City, and joining the Hungarian community in New Brunswick, New Jersey. His son Sandor Fekete II (1906-1983) lived in Princeton and worked as a bridge tender also. Fekete's first job was laying brick and breaking up rocks along the Delaware and Raritan Canal. Later he was promoted to a supervisor for a work boats that made repairs along the canal. He was promoted to foreman of a twenty-eight-man work crew, living in an apartment on Conduct Street in New Brunswick, New Jersey. In 1916 he was promoted to locktender in Griggstown, New Jersey." (leaving in the existing citations, however). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. Fram (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Regarding going against Wikipedia:Merging, it links to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before_nominating_an_article_for_deletion which then takes us to AFDHOW. That seems to say that merge proposals should be kept apart from deletion proposals, not that deletion proposals should avoid discussing mergers until later in the process. I agree, though, that the edit was jumping the gun. --Northernhenge (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2011 (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.