Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silas Kopf

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 Keep. Article development led to clear consensus before closure. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 04:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silas Kopf

~~Seems nn. Just H 02:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)~~Thanks Quadzilla, I rescind my nomination. Just H 22:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Notability. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here what's I dug up on him per multiple non-trivial works:[1][2][3] Boston Globe article solely about him:[4][5][6][7] I could go on but you get the point. Quadzilla99 03:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean Up - Per Quadzilla99's discoveries, this person is clearly notable and suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, though the article needs citations. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the Boston Globe article about him, WP:N is satisfied. The article can use some work, but if nom doesn't provide another reason, KEEP - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but work in those sources. Alf photoman 18:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I added in some of Quadzilla's sources and links -- would you say it's okay now? Eeblefish 03:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add citations, which apparently do exist per comments of Quadzilla99. JCO312 15:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a vote, just full disclosure - I had forgotten about this article, which I wrote when I first started editing Wikipedia and didn't know the rules. Yes, it's about my own dad, which I now know is against Wikipolicy. I hope that doesn't mean it will be automatically deleted, but of course I understand if it does. Just as a plug for keeping the article in some form, he is quite notable in the furniture world, particularly in the U.S. where he is one of a handful of marqueteurs and has developed some innovative stylistic approaches to the art. Along with what's in the article, his work is on display in places like the Yale Art Museum, and he was featured on the end page of the NYT Magazine some years ago (long before it went online, making it hard to find). For what it's worth, he's also in the process of publishing a book on the history of marquetry. On the other hand, I'm obviously biased, so you can take whatever I say with a grain of salt! Anyway, everything in the article can be sourced, but I didn't think it would be appropriate for me to edit it anymore. If someone else would like to source and edit to give it a shot at passing AfD, that would be lovely, but this should probably be my last work on the subject. Anyway, carry on! - Sasha Kopf 00:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, not at all. You didn't do anything wrong, especially considering that you did it in 2004. I don't see there is anything wrong with uncontroversial things like digging up further sources. If you don't trust yourself to be neutral, then drop them on the talk page. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Silas Kopf's your dad? I can't WAIT to read his book on marquetry, a seriously under-rated and undervalued furniture art in the modern era, where people believe "solid wood" furniture is the mark of quality! Rock on for posting his bio in brief. Now, be good and get a close-up and full length photograph of a single one of his latest works and contribute it to the PD for Wikipedia. Awesome. KP Botany 03:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources Quadzilla99 dug up seem to be adequate, meets WP:V and WP:BIO, and it helps that despite the WP:COI issue the article tone seems moderate and not too self-promoting. --Shirahadasha 00:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I copied the sources to the article's talk page in the hope they can be used in the future to better the article. Quadzilla99 02:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep per these sources. Eeblefish 02:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! KP Botany 03:48, 25 January 2007 (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.