Talk:Andrew Jackson Sr.

Merger proposal
User:DGG has proposed that Hugh Jackson (businessman) be merged to Andrew Jackson, Sr. I previously proposed the former page for deletion, as the elder Jackson has no independent notability and the page is completely unreferenced. I still believe that the page may be deleted with no significant loss of notable information. If it is not deleted, however, Andrew Jackson, Sr. seems like the most appropriate merger target. Cnilep (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally think this article should at least have a few sources added, maybe even be expanded a little. That's all it needs to be more reliable. Its much better than a lot of the stubs I have seen on Wikipedia. Dock26 Pwnage (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC) This comment has been copied from Talk:Hugh Jackson (businessman). Cnilep (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather than continue this discussion in two places I suggest that any further comments be posted to Talk:Hugh Jackson (businessman). Both the above posts are duplicated there. JamesBWatson (talk)

Post-AfD--Don't Merge!
The AfD discussion recently closed as merge before I had a chance to add my view, but I wanted to weigh in strongly against merging and try to convince whoever wants to embark on a merge not to do so. For starters see my conversation with the closing administrator Sandstein [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&oldid=341053178#Andrew_Jackson_Sr. here].

Basically we can source this article better than it is now, and Andrew Jackson Sr. has undoubtedly been discussed in literally dozens of books (I found two on my shelf in two minutes). By our definitions of notability he is notable because reliable secondary sources have discussed him and his (admittedly brief) life. A merge to Andrew Jackson makes no sense to me because it will either: A) Leave out information; B) Go into too much detail for a bio that needs to talk about a whole lot more than Jackson's father.

I'd suggest keeping this article as it is and improving it. If the article Family of Andrew Jackson is created as some proposed then it could be merged there, though that article could get a bit complicated if we really cover all of his family. We also need to consider the fact that merging this while retaining Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson as a full article does not necessarily make sense. One option (perhaps the best one) would be to merge this with the article on Jackson's mother (or vice versa), essentially a "parents of Andrew Jackson" article. In the AfD discussion no one even brought up the fact that she had an article, which suggests that not all of the options, nor the ramifications of merging, were considered. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I completed the merge before reading Bigtimepeace's discussion with Sandstein. I meant no disrespect to either editor and apologize if this appears to discount Bigtimepeace's views. I still believe, though, that merger was the best option at this time. I don't think that the merged text leaves out any information from Andrew Jackson, Sr.; even so, it comprises only one paragraph in the section Andrew Jackson. The text of Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson likewise includes little information beyond that paragraph. Of course, if additional information is available, it is always possible to expand the article Andrew Jackson, Sr., or to create Family of Andrew Jackson, perhaps even re-copying the merged text. Cnilep (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The AfD was open for eighteen days and gained many responses. The consensus was clearly not for 'delete' or 'keep' but for a merge or a family article. I don't see that if these two editors had contributed to the AfD that it would have changed the outcome, so the merge was right to go ahead. Boleyn (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't fault Cnilep for doing the merge (that was the conclusion of the AfD), but the fact is that in my view it's simply the wrong decision, regardless of AfD consensus. Most of those supporting a merge in the AfD argued that there were not sufficient sources which discuss Jackson Sr. such that notability would be established, but that just is not correct. I could slightly expand (and thoroughly source what is already there) the previously existing article with a couple of books on my shelf, neither of which is a full-blown biography of Andrew Jackson. The fact that the AfD was open for a long time is not particularly relevant either&mdash;no offense to anyone who commented, but I'm guessing most are not overly familiar with Jackson or that period of U.S. history generally. In terms of a "family of" article I think that might be problematic, but I'll comment about that at Talk:Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson since Cnilep has started a discussion there. I'm certainly not going to undo the merge now, but I would like editors to leave open the possibility that we move the text on Andrew Jackson Sr. back into it's own article assuming that more info and sourcing can be added, which I am quite certain is the case. While the caution of WP:OTHERSTUFF is always worth keeping in mind, the fact is that we have thousands (indeed probably tens of thousands) of bios on Wikipedia of people who have received far less coverage in secondary sources than has Andrew Jackson's father. The fact that many or most of those sources are not online is no doubt part of the issue here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)