Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben harms

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The result was nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben harms

~~Non Notable biography. References may not support notability.~~ Hitro talk 09:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn Hitro talk 05:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can find nothing more about him save that he is a carver and teaches (part time?) at a FE college. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are a few more hits - he has contributed to The Complete Book of Woodworking: An Illustrated Guide to Tools. by Declan O'Donoghue - 2003, and leading some more miscellaneous workshops. This alone merely shows activity, not notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadchildstar (talk • contribs) 17:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
he is also about to become President of the Master Carvers association in September and has just completed the wood carvings for Hampton Court of the kings beasts for King Henry VIII 500th anniversary in the newly restored chapel court garden.His work at the great palaces and Castles have made a notible contribution to England's history and heritage . i think this alone makes him notable as the work he carries out needs to be documented for future generations. what an opportunity!! What if Thomas Chippendale was able to give a full detail of all his works as they happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smdjkd001 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in what is today a field with little media coverage. But the article needs referencing and improving generally. Johnbod (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Working craftsman, not notable. When he becomes President of the Master Carvers Association then he'll be notable. If there's a source confirming that he's the new President, he's notable now.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've done a major revamp of the article. It previously looked like this. He is an extremely successful practitioner in his field, which is a very specialised one. He has to be judged within that, and not by comparison with coverage of the latest soon-to-be-forgotten pop culture item. There is enough online to substantiate his work, but more is likely to be found only in print sources. Ty 08:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Tyrenius. Clear pass of Wikipedia's core values, more precisely WP:V and WP:NPOV. San Francisco Cronicle is a WP:RS. The deletion rationale and !votes are simply not compliant with either policy or guidelines. In a nutshell, we dont delete articles if, at present, "References may not support notability" - article are deleted if judged to have no potential ever to meet requirements. We simply would not have such a successful and comprehensive Wikipedia as we have, had early article drafts be deleted the way suggested here. This artist it very productive, and successful, even approching presidency of a craftsman association - extremely unlikely that this should not meet the most stringent interpretions of WP:N, which btw is only a guideline that has consistently failed becoming policy. May I even quote the notability guideline: "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort". I.e. not the first. Power.corrupts (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- This aint a clear pass otherwise it not has been here. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. WP:POTENTIAL is just an essay. Please look at the version of article which was nominated for deletion. References should support notability and verify the claims otherwise you and me will have separate Wikipedian article and this comprehesive enyclopedia will turn into MySpace. I appreciate Tyrenius work, this article may satisfy WP:ARTIST as of now and can be retained. Hitro talk 08:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll roll - when I first read it, it was far more POV. If Ty's found even more sources, as it seems from the improved article, that's great. My own expertise lies outside of woodcarving, craft and British arts. Thought I'd better actually state I've changed my mind/!vote, we don't need another Robert Petrick situation here. Keep. Deadchildstar (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Encyclopedic craftsman...and free Robert Petrick...Modernist (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2009 (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.