Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Kaplan

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 08:37Z

[edit] Steven Kaplan

Steven Kaplan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable, as per WP:BIO. Nice credentials but you have to do something notable to stay on here. Theloniouszen 23:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the esteemed businessman with his family website as reference for failing WP:ATT Alf^Photoman 00:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. In general, someone with a named professorship has done enough to be notable, and an inadequately sourced article about the holder of a named professorship ought to be tagged with {{expand}} or {{sources}} rather than submitted it to AfD. --Eastmain 00:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the article in present condition fails WP:BIO and WP:A, of course if the article meets these policies by the end of the AfD my suggestion would change. Jeepday 00:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Named chair at a good research university is sufficient claim of notability for me, and the pointer to his university web site is sufficient source. The part about his family is unimportant but harmless. —David Eppstein 02:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep As Epstein says, and has been said many times, full professors at research universities are N, having passed several external reviews by experts for their notability in the profession. We don't establish notability in WP, we see if the profession has established notability. -- This doesn't apply to every college, but it does to major research universities and Chicago certainly has long been at the very the highest level of US universities in Economics. (We should distinguish him from businessman whose N is running businesses and have quite different N concerns). I have added some of his many papers and awards. I fixed some of the many typos. I wonder who wrote the article.DGG 03:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's Eppstein. David Epstein is a totally different guy. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 12:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. Named professorship at one of the best business schools in the world. One would think that confers notability. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 11:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, sorry to be slightly snappy about this one, but no matter if the person is notable or not there are no reliable second party sources anywhere (the link to the university web site is not a second party source, but one that is associated with the person) in this article. What is worse, this thing links to his FAMILY WEB SITE for which I don't see any reason at all. So we have WP:BLP failing WP:ATT, which is reasons enough to delete. If there are sources added during an AfD I am always willing to change my opinion but I don't see why guidelines are rubber-banded to the whim of an AfD Alf^Photoman 15:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is plenty of third-party sourcing of Kaplan's professorship. The articles are subscription-only, so I didn't read them, but from the snippets from Google it appears that they also document significant notability beyond the professorship itself. It's third hand and non-independent, but several U. Chicago news releases document some notable press coverage of Kaplan and his work. Perhaps some of this should be added to WP, but saying there are no sources anywhere seems an overstatement for their omission from the article. —David Eppstein 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Still fails WP:ATT because there is no attribution to anybody or anything, that is my point. Alf^Photoman 18:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do not see what your point is, despite your citing of various policies. Do you dispute that Kaplan has a named professorship at a world-renowned business school? If you do not, then clearly this article should exist. Whether there are problems within the article or whether parts or unsourced or whatever, has very little to do with deletion of this article. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 18:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT applies to "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". What do you see on the page that fits that description? —David Eppstein 18:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

See section Living persons Alf^Photoman 18:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure David is already aware of this. You seem to be confusing the issue of sourcing and deleting content with deletion of articles themselves. WP:BLP is designed to make sure information in a bio is reliably sourced. Not to advocate deletion of bios on notable persons. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 18:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is the only thing that is attributable is that Kaplan is a professor and that he has several publications, the rest of the article should go. That would also mean that it is sourced i.a.w. WP:ATT and WP:BPL and there would be no problem keeping it. As is 80% - 90% is not reliable Alf^Photoman 19:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat my question. The part about living people in WP:ATT applies to "contentious material". What in the present article do you see as contentious? —David Eppstein 23:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok lets go back to square 1:

First, somehow I got confused with ATT and BLP, we are talking BLP now:

(quote) Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources (unquote)

and

(quote) Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy. (unquote)

There we have notability where it claims:

In 2001, he was Visiting Professor at NSEAD, in Fontainbleau, France. He is a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research ... Sources?

References to his jobs as Editor ... sources ?

Teachings, sources?

So far with my references problem.

Additional, why is the Family section relevant? Why is there a link to his family's website? are we Myspace or something?

I am not trying to be a Prick, but these are concerns that have to be addressed and most probably the cause for this article to be nominated for AfD to start with. Alf^Photoman 00:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS says that self-published sources may be used for non-contentious material about the source itself. Most or all of the content here may be sourced in this way from Kaplan's two web sites. If you have some reason for believing that this policy does not apply because some of this material may be contentious (I ask this of you a third time: what if anything in here is contentious?) then much of the professional activity is also sourced at http://catalogues.uchicago.edu/gsb-folder/gsb0607.pdf

Re the family information: it's not a basis for notability, so I don't know why we're discussing it here, but are you arguing that biographies of all persons should be stripped of anything that does not directly relate to their notability? For instance, should we remove birth and death dates? On second thought, the family info was quite inane. I removed it. —David Eppstein 01:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, instead of having this fight all that was necessary is to add that link to the article and bingo... no problem. And yes, I have made several suggestions to have irrelevant personal data removed, and in case of request by user subject of article including birthdays if approved by consensus Alf^Photoman 01:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, changing per references found by David Eppstein Alf^Photoman 01:23, 6 March 2007 (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.