Talk:Sympson the Joiner

VfD Discussion

Renamed from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sympson:

Re: Sympson, now Sympson the Joiner; refs: Samuel Pepys, Pepys Library
I tried to find backing for this on google, came up with around 100 hits, again, mostly the mirrors and genalogical stuff you would expect. Not sure if this is noteable, if the guy is only mentioned in 1 peron's diary, and we only know of one work he has built. Lyellin 08:42, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

• I'd send this to cleanup to await attention from furniture historians. As is it only says that the guy apparently existed. This is probably something not easily researchable in google and co. Ianb 09:00, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Art historians might well have something to say about the figure, but from a historical/literary point of view, he's too tangential. Clean up is a safe bet, but it's not very strong. The last lines of the article are, well, extremely suspect. Geogre 13:19, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I concurm ore or less- keep for now, but move to Pages Needing Attention. If there's any more information about him(?), or is connected to anyhting else, or if the cabinetry itself is particularly notable... there are plenty of ways that this could be notable if we knew more; it needs attention from someone who really knows the history of joinery, and/or a Pepys expert, to tell if it's worth keeping. -FZ 13:48, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete—on the article's own terms, it seems like the only mention of this guy is in someone's diary. Being three centuries old doesn't inherently give notability to the non-notable. Postdlf 19:50, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a stub, but Pepys's diary is a major literary/historical source and crafts are an increasingly studied art history area. Needs cleanup. Bacchiad 21:41, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as redirects after history merge with Pepys Library (i made Pepys's library a redir to that, BTW). (N.B.: Don't do the history merge until this is thoroughly discussed, as it would be expensive to reverse.) If other info on him turns up, one of the redirs can be turned into an article. ... Magdalene College should make a pleasant afternoon's jaunt, to quiz a docent, BTW. ... Too bad we don't do original research, or i'd suggest [wink] borrowing a coring tool from a dendrochronologist; with a distracted docent and a little luck, it might be possible to confirm that the harvesting date is consistent with his never having replaced them....uh, never mind.... --Jerzy(t) 17:16, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

End of discussion moved here by renaming

Should this be Merged?

During VfD discussion, i proposed (context above)

Keep as redirects after history merge with Pepys Library (i made Pepys's library a redir to that, BTW). (N.B.: Don't do the history merge until this is thoroughly discussed, as it would be expensive to reverse.) If other info on him turns up, one of the redirs can be turned into an article.

which has elicited no discussion.

Maybe it should sit a while, in case further research (not by me!) fleshes it out. And i may point out the Keep and this section heading to those who commented under VfD.
--Jerzy(t) 18:53, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

I am not adding merge tags as called for at Wikipedia:Duplicate articles because

• this is a matter of an small article covering another aspect that would be well included (based on what we have now, at least) as part of another, rather than both covering the same topic, and
• i'm prepared to carry out the merge (in a clean way that makes the full history clear and accessible in one place), rather than needing to recruit someone to do it there.

Definitely if it merges (and maybe anyway), i would factor out the discussion of joinery/cabinet-making/upholstery into something like Furniture hand-trades. --Jerzy(t) 04:23, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

• Merge mention of Sympson and description of bookcases with Pepys Library; I agree that the discussion of joinery should be removed, as should the quotes from the Pepys diary, which don't add anything informative. Postdlf 05:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I was never entirely convinced that much would show up on this fellow, nor that the fellow is terribly known. It would be nice if he had an entry, just in case someone does show up and wish to contribute. The one move none of us pursued was contacting the author of the article to ask for specification. At any rate, if you are willing to put in all of the work involved, then I would agree that a merge to Pepys Library is called for. The joinery discussion is, oddly enough, the section of the article that seemed to move most of the "keep" votes. The problem is that it requires exceptionally refined historical knowledge to add. The Pepys quotes are not entirely irrelevant, if scaled back, to the Furniture (or Furniture history or Furniture artisans or Furniture hand-trades), as they are a primary witness statement. Thanks for all the work, Jerzy. Geogre 12:24, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I think it's reasonable to keep it. Frankly, as it stands now, it's not a bad article. It doesn't have a lot of information, but it's coherent and well-written, and it serves to tell a reader what is known, rather than leaving them wondering. More information may turn up in time, if an editor should appear with specialist knowledge, but in the meantime, it seems reasonable to just let it be. -FZ 13:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I personally think it should be merged. That being said, I'm not strong either way on the issue. Merging just makes sense to me. Doesn' seem to be more information on this guy coming, and someone can always edit the redirect into an article of we have a sympson addict appear, somehow. Lyellin 18:35, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

• Is it possible that Sympson was one of the earliest of the English furniture makers that we actually know the name of? ping 09:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• [[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]](t) 14:35, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC) moved this here from his own talk page & re-fmt-ed:]

Hi there, I missed all this VfD discussion being away from home for a couple of weeks. And then for some reason your questions about merging did not appear until today even though they are dated August 16th. Very strange.

Anyway to the point. I wrote the article on Sympson because I was working through the list of furniture designers when I came across his name. Being also a bit of a Pepys fan I enjoyed putting together the article. It is extremely unlikely that there is ever going to be any more information about him and it always will be a very minor footnote to history. However he does have a bit a place in history as I suspect he might be one of the earliest English furniture designers the we actually know the name of. I cannot confirm that, anyway it might be original research, but he does have some significance.

So I suggest that the article continues to stand on its own.

I will go back later and add these thoughts also to the talk page.

OK?

ping 07:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • The delay may reflect your browser providing an old copy from its cache. --Jerzy(t) 15:02, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
  • IMO it doesn't make Sympson encyclopedically notable. On the other hand, it may be worth noting in an article on his trade or skilled trades in general that (at least at that time) it took someone like Pepys to record such a name, despite their willingness to pay out "great deal of money". (And am i wrong in imagining he was very "comfortable" financially, and perhaps notably wealthy? What would amount to "a great deal" to him?) --Jerzy(t) 15:02, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)