Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Kerpen

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 No consensus defaulting to keep. Computerjoe's talk 19:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Kerpen

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

The article should be deleted because its subject is not notable. The only links to the page are from the User: namespace. This appears to be a vanity page. —ptk⁂fgs 13:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - writing for fairly important newspaper and magazine is notable, marginally. Certainly needs cleanup--Pyroclastic 13:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment – I would offer that this is an analogue to someone who fails the "professor test" described at WP:BIO. Many, many people write for fairly important publications, and I question whether Kerpen is notable in this field. —ptk⁂fgs 13:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - having one's material accepted regularly as a columnist for a major publication is notable enough for me. Akradecki 14:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Two hits for a Major Papers search on Lexis-Nexis for author "kerpen"; five hits on Google News (four "phil kerpen" and one "philip g kerpen"). If he's being published in notable amounts, it's not being indexed. —ptk✰fgs 00:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Knew you were a debater. You need to work on your lexis skills though--"Phil! /3 Kerpen" has 14 hits in "Major Papers" and 88 in "News - Previous Two Years." Google News only goes back 30 days; 5 in a month is plenty. --ΦΓ 16:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A guy who dropped out of school and started a blog. This is notable? --Xrblsnggt 03:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete linked nowhere in mainspace, non-notable. Fails WP:BIO clearly. Deleuze 05:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He has hundreds of major publications, is frequently quotes in news stories, has tens of thousands of google hits, and has held high positions in influential political organizations. I am here because of a forum post, but really, this deletion effort seems like it's being done by people from the same site, not acting objectively. --ΦΓ 06:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have never made or read any forum post regarding Phil Kerpen. —ptk✰fgs 06:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Then why the sudden interest in deleting an article with such a lengthy history? --ΦΓ 06:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Why is there ever interest in deleting an article? This insinuation would apply to almost any AfD. Deleuze 08:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • — Possible single purpose account: ΦΓ (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. —ptk✰fgs 06:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He meets the Google Test and is well-known within the Policy debate community. That most Policy debate articles are under-developed, and the topic as a whole is poorly covered in Wikipedia, should not count against this article. A well-developed article on Policy debate evidence authors/publishers would include references to Mr. Kerpen. He also travels in "think tank" circles writing and shaping policy for major groups. Liffer 23:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment ΦΓ has added a list of publications to the article. Is this a comprehensive (or near-comprehensive) list? —ptk✰fgs 00:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No, it isn't. I restored it from the history. It is incomplete. --ΦΓ 00:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Philip G. Kerpen is a notable figure in both in the worlds of academic debate and public policy. He is directly responsible for administering and facilitating a large share of the tournament operations, interleague and intersquad communications and runs the second largest educational supplement materials company in the area. Mr. Kerpen's innovations in the area of academic policy debate include published essays on his website and in magazines serving the activity, such as Rostrum, and also include developing new models of research and information distribution through the internet. Modern academic policy debate would not be anywhere near as advanced as it is without Mr. Kerpen's contributions.

Moreover, Philip G. Kerpen is a notable author of op-eds, white papers, briefing books and books, having worked for the Woodhill Foundation, The Cato Institute, The Club for Growth and The Free Enterprise Fund. He was instrumental in founding the latter, and was the primary mover in The Club for Growth. His recent works have included candidate interviews, candidate endorsements, political strategy decisions, major gift and donor relations, authoring of position papers and authoring columns for publication in several newspapers and opinion magazines. He has been published and interviewed in media as diverse as Black Enterprise and The Wall St. Journal, and recently, Doublethink. Mr. Kerpen is also a Contributing Editor to The National Review and a regular columnist in The New York Sun.

Deletion of Philip G. Kerpen's page is about as sensible as deleting Dick Morris'. His page should be renamed, though, to make it easier for readers to find. His professional nomme de guerre is Philip G. Kerpen, not Phil Kerpen. Texasyellowdog

• — Possible single purpose account: Texasyellowdog (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.. Liffer 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Seems highly suspect that the subject of the biography posted the article on Wikipedia as an ad for his websites. Naming cross-x as leading website is very opinionated. --Hero27 20:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • — Possible single purpose account: Hero27 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. —ptk✰fgs 00:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I am the subject of this article. A few points: 1. I had nothing to do with its creation, though I have edited it several times to remove prejudicial and inaccurate material. 2. I have no interest in advertising my web sites, which are already universally known and used by their target audience. 3. I'm secure in the knowledge that I'm notable enough to be widely quoted as an expert on economic policy issues in major media outlets, regardless of whether you judge me "not notable." Whatever your decision is regarding deletion, please do be more vigilant in removing the accusations of bestiality, Nazism and such that appear on this web site from time to time. Thanks. --Phil Kerpen 00:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I am the owner of the texasyellowdog account. I am not a single purpose user, but I had never seen a page that I really wanted to edit before. Mr. Kerpen is a colleague from the halcyon days of debate, as well as a professional colleauge, and his contributions to both fields are quite well known. A Wikipedia page on him is quite justified, which is why I wanted to weigh in. Texasyellowdog

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.