Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Sack


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 01:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Albert Sack

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NBIO not notable according to sources in article.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 06:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 06:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Here are two more sources entirely about Sack. One in Antiques & the Arts Weekly and the other in Antiques  Thriley (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * what do you think? There are certainly more sources out there about him. these are just ones that came up after a quick search. Thriley (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I found this https://www.afanews.com/home/item/486-albert-sack-first-and-last although what was already found is convincing enough.  D r e a m Focus  13:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep sources listed above are enough for GNG Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the multiple and extensive obituaries, any two of which (including an NYT obit!) makes this an WP:BASIC pass. This source also looks interesting. FOARP (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Highly influential in the field of American antiques and collecting, significant coverage in independent published sources, meets WP:BASIC. His book Fine Points of Early American Furniture was reviewed in The William and Mary Quarterly and The Wisconsin Magazine of History so he might meet WP:AUTHOR too. Article does need cleanup and expansion but lacks basis for deletion. Topshelver (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: Agree with the overwhelming consensus. Passes the criteria of WP: GNG with flying colors. Although the article needs quite a bit of work. KlayCax (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggesting a close and keep. An overwhelming consensus now seems clear. KlayCax (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. IMHO WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC are easily met, The New York Times is definitely RS, Antiques (magazine), Antiques and the Arts Weekly and American Federation of Arts are SIGCOV and cited/discussed by other RS with WP articles so are likely reliable as well. This might weakly meet WP:NAUTHOR as well given the two reviews.  VickKiang  (talk)  00:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep revisions to the article have addressed my concerns about WP:NBIO and sources have enough to pass now. Thanks for all the work every put into this article.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 01:16, 12 October 2022 (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.