Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eaton House (Watchung, New Jersey)


 * 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 Delete. (Per discussion, there is currently no reliable sourcing for a merge or redirect.) — Cactus Writer (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Eaton House (Watchung, New Jersey)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to meet any of the Project's notability standards. Was PRODed. PROD was removed by creator -- the only editor who seems to have any real interest in this article. On the basis that "Article has been in place for several years and is about the historic home of Congressman Aubrey Eaton." Those assertions do not make the subject of the article notable. Epeefleche (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: This discussion I had with the article's creator abt 2 yrs ago says it all. Appropriate sources just aren't there. EEng (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔  15:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, does not seem to be notable as a building in its own right. Past occupnts are not relevant:WP:NOTINHERITED.TheLongTone (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Charles Aubrey Eaton. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC).


 * That makes sense. EEng (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything that is both non-trivial and RS-supported to merge. Epeefleche (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm? Non-trivial in the sense of the house, maybe, but it is generally worthy of note where a figure ahas lived for a long time, especially if the house was built for or by them.  If the remaining non-deleted information is already in the target article, then simply make a redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Exactly. If the salvageable material is the null set, then that's what we'll move. Why does everything have to be a hypertechnical fuss? I should say, though, that there's some reason Epeefleche is somewhat exercised: turns out this and a few related articles were a crass move by some sockpuppets to raise the rental value of some real estate. Not going to bother finding the SPI link now. EEng (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * EEng is of course correct. The author of this article -- who btw sourced this article completely with putative sources that one can't verify online, and which have only to this point been accepted on an assumption of good faith -- is part of a set of socks.  The socks were intent on creating an article on "Maryse Selit" who was deemed, at AfD (despite more than one sock participating), to be non-notable.  The socks also created this article, and were also intent in the course of writing this article on asserting through non-RSs that Maryse Selit purchased this house.  Frankly, given the socking, and indef blocks of the socks (both for legal threats and socking), I believe that AgF is not in order, and believe we should therefore delete the refs we cannot verify, and all they reflect.  Which, of course, leaves zero RS-supported material to merge. Epeefleche (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, any merge should take an extremely strict view of the sources -- no AGF for offline sources supplied by socks. EEng (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems perhaps more likely that the effort to make the house notable is for the rental value, rather than the resale value. I find this nauseating, and object strongly to any merge or even a redirect -- this is simply a non-notable house that someone is seeking to rachet up the resale value on by abusing the Project. Reprehensible. Epeefleche (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I find it nauseating as well, especially since the participants in this scheme appear to be attorneys who thought they could fool us with this stratagem -- disturbing to think officers of the court can be so stupid. But we don't punish articles for the sins of their creators -- if there's verified (by the evidence of our own eyes) material re the house that's worth mentioning in the other article, fine, we'll include it. But we need to ask whether such information is something we'd bother including if it we're shoved in our face by this situation. We can take this up once the AfD is closed. EEng (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Followup: On reflection I guess there is a difference between a delete, and a merge (even if the merge doesn't actually move any material to the target article). The difference is that a merge leaves behind a redirect, and while this may sound trivial, given the history of this situation if this subject isn't notable, which it doesn't seem to be, then it shouldn't have a redirect which would continue to validate the promotional scheme discussed above. In summary: zero or more bits of material might be moved, but there should be no redirect. EEng (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Even use of the phrase "Eaton House" for this building is either fabricated or non-notable. Rendering a redirect inappropriate. And for further evidence of the commercial nature of this creation, check out the wikipedia commons pix posted by the socks and linked to in this article and their genesis at http://www.vacationrentals.com.Epeefleche (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.