A fact from Frank Curto Park appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 July 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening articles
A banner on Frank Curto bio indicates a suggestion to merge that article into this one, with a link here to discuss the suggestion. I'm inclined to think he stands on his own merits nicely, though that article is start-class & could certainly bear further development. Frank Curto Bridge might also merit a page. duff 05:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Duff: I see that you are the one who created Frank Curto and this article. I fully support the merge. Curto clearly does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. He was merely a longtime employee of a city department, which earned him some local honors, but that's the extent of it. Being "notable" in Pittsburgh (or any other city) does in no way automatically make one notable for Wikipedia, which is global. This is not even a close call. --76.189.126.40 (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I place the merge tags, the only reason the person appears to be able to have any claim to notability from any reliable source coverage is the fact that the park was named after him. Any content about the person can be fully covered here. --TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be the other way around? The park is named after the man, so if you look up the man you find out that a park, bridge, etc. are named after him and here is why. The merge should be in the other direction.
Wikipedia goes by the sources. The primary coverage in reliable third party sources is about the park, hence, we have an article about the park and discuss among the many things related to the park that have gotten coverage, its namesake.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are some of the same reliable sources in the Frank Curto entry so your point is mute. In fact the first source for the park is no longer archived on the TribLiveNews Site any longer.
1) be careful when writing to not place your comments before my signature.
So the Journal of American Rhododendron Society and the Pittsburgh Press do not count as reliable? I would think that as the description of significant suggests the sources sited for the park would not qualify the article to be merged as you are suggesting. Again, the park is named for the person and his accomplishments. The source cited for the park is a quotation by a project manager/artist about the park and does not give facts regarding the park's foundation, etc. It merely states an opinion about the park.
What counts then? Because those are published journals/newspapers pertaining to the life of Frank Curto, who is the purported subject of the article. If that doesn't count as a source what does? Certainly not the citings for the park. Those are laughable as sources and if a student were to use them as a cite in a paper they would not hold credance for the material cited. There is not factual information about the park itself, merely events held at or near the park. And as I said before, one of the citings does not even exist anymore, so how can it be upheld as a source?
you keep missing that it is more than just "his name appears in a source" - there has to be significant content by third party sources about the subject. The most significant item about this person is that they had a park named after them after they died.
And sources do not have to be available on-line even if the link is currently dead, if it provided enough standard citation criteria, it could still count as a valid source even if the link itself doesnt work.
It could also be that there is insufficient coverage for either article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His name more than appears in the sources for the articles. There are facts about his life that are used in the Wikipedia article written. Some direct quotations of information even. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.23.68.24 (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of the Frank Curto Park page were merged into Frank Curto and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history.
