Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Kopstein


 * 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. Even after the rewrite, most people believe that there is not enough significant coverage to establish notability.  Sandstein  10:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Jack Kopstein

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indications that this person meets the criteria for inclusion for biographies. Written very much as a tribute, but there are insufficient sources to rewrite in an encyclopedic fashion. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Subject has numerous 3rd party references and is a notable contributor to military music, especially in Canada. Keep article, but encourage author to revise in a more encyclopedic and less journalistic style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.136.115 (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If "numerous 3rd party references" are available, please provide them. I have been unable to find any references to Kopstein in reliable sources.  The references provided in the article are not articles about Kopstein, but rather writings by Kopstein, which indicate merely that he is a writer, not that he is notable.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Delete - Article needs a serious rewrite according to several guidelines, including neutral style and use of references. Kudpung (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete unless rewritten. This reads as vanispamcruftisement, there is an obvious inference of a tangible connection between the author and the subject, though I don't think it's actually an autobiography. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no connection whatsoever between the author and the subject, bar a long distance series of emails constituting an interview. They have never met nor have they even spoken. The author was impressed by the many articles written by the subject which are of enormous historical value to the Canadian Forces and to the history of music in Canada. Seaphoto commented on how well written the article was, even suggesting it appeared to have been copied from a book. Not so -- the author was an arts journalist for 17 years and has written and published a novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arran56 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and trim to verifiable information. Kopstein has received coverage of some sort in the Windsor Star in 1964, 1981, and again in 1981.  There's also been coverage in The Chilliwack Times, and this minor little paper called the Los Angeles Times. -- Whpq (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not clear that any of those references amount to significant coverage. The first 3 are from local Windsor-area papers, and appear to be local personality type coverage ("local boy makes good").  The LA Times piece (I couldn't find it in the archives; kudos to Whpq for doing so) is more a review of the website than a profile of the site's creator.  I'm ambivalent about this -- I'll let the opinions of others assess whether these articles amount to significant coverage or not.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The second page of the LA Times article has a bit more about him, although the article subject is about his web site. For me the coverage is not primary, but goes beyond the trivial.  I agree that the Windsor stories are local in nature, and my !vote would have been for delete had it not been for the presence of the Chilliwack article, and especially the LA Times article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The Chilliwack piece also amounts to "local boy makes good" as it was written after Kopstein had moved there. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 Author Comment  It surprises me that so many of you don't see the significance and importance of what Kopstein has done. 14 articles to the Encyclopedia of Music in Canada, as he is considered the authority of military band history in the country, as well as the 3 books going into greater depth on all of the facets of the topic. It took 10 years to get to the point where he had searched high and low for the information, scouring the country from coast to coast, until he had enough to write about it extensively. If one of you will tell me what doesn't meet your encyclopedic standards, I'll remove or rewrite. I'd like your help. Arran56 Arran56 (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - my 'weak keep' now changed to 'delete' above, was entirely dependent on a complete rewrite to remove the vanispamcruftisement and introduce a perfectly neutral encyclopedic style. The author has shown no attempt to improve this article in this respect, nor to add any inline refs. .Kudpung (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Largely promotional. Even if a good article is possible, this old version would not help in its creation.  Best, to start fresh, with only sourced claims.  --Rob (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, it has been rewritten, so look again. Some of the material removed is fluff, but other material would be pertinent in a biography if we can corroborate it with reliable sourcing, so having this in the history of the article is useful, and as such, deletion is a bad idea. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply. Ok, I withdraw my "delete" since this is basically a whole new, sourced, article.  --Rob (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply No one is saying that Kopstein isn't a diligent researcher. But that doesn't make him notable.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Further Author Comment I've edited. Please reread. I wait for your comments. Arran56 (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * comment - It isn't up to us, as wikipedia editors, to determine the importance of Kopstein's work. Notability is established by coverage about the subject in reliable sources.  And for a biography of a living person, the policy of verifiability is especially important.  I believe that the sources available are sufficient to establish notability, but if you have other reliable sources, please bring them forward.  I have trimmed the article down to verifiable facts with some material sill needing citation, and rewritten the material to be more in line with a neutral point of view. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability not established with verifiable, third party resources. As another editor pointed out, the local papers seem to focus on the local personality angle, and the LA times article is more of a lifestyle piece on the website the subject runs.  The edit by Arun56 toned done the hyperbole (and yes, his writing is very good), but still we are left with someone who does not meet the music notability standard (WP:MUSICBIO), nor those for an author (WP:AUTHOR), at least with the current cited sources.  Sea photo Talk  22:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment * Whoever has done this massive and clumsy edit has missed the whole point of the importance of the work Kopstein has done. You must have pretty small minds. You've even got the facts wrong, because you obviously don't understand how the ranks and titles in the Canadian Forces work. Why didn't you cut it down to "Kopstein was born, and he's still alive?" Easily verifiable. That's probably all you're capable of. In order to obtain a neutral point of view I suspect you all have minds in neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.27.19.37 (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - I was the one who trimmed the article to its barest facts. You may call it a clumsy edit, and I agree that that the article as it now stands is full of gaps that could use some filling.  However, the version that was was there before did not adhere to a neutral point of view with a lot of unsourced information.  The version that is there now is a referenced base from which more sourced information could be added if there are reliable sources to support it. -- Whpq (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Response * If you can't edit properly, don't edit. That's not an edit. You wouldn't last a minute even as a sub-editor for a grade school mimeographed class worksheet. You decimated the article, and you have several facts wrong because you didn't even read the original properly. The point of the article is gone. Both the subject and the author want that embarrassment deleted. My faith in Wikipedia has been destroyed completely. I shall make a formal complaint about the vindictive treatment and high-handed incompetence from the various editors who have contributed to all this. As one psychology professor commented: "They've not accomplished anything in their own lives, so this classic petty-authority syndrome gives them the only feeling of superiority they've ever had in their lives." There's more, but I shall reserve it for the formal complaint. If this article isn't deleted immediately the next letter will be from a lawyer, and we'll go public on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arran56 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What was the point of the article? What facts were got wrong (don't forget WP:V)? And I suggest you remove your legal threat before you get blocked. (oops, too late) "If you can't edit properly, don't edit." Editing properly includes adhering to wikipedia policys such as verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view, especially important in biographies of living people. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, he received a few medals, [as did 30,000 others in 1977 http://www.veterans.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group10/qeiijm]. Media coverage is not significant enough to meet WP:BIO. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:55, 6 January 2011 (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.