Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Caplan

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. Michig (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Caplan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating on behalf of a new user Wmacmil who posted to WP:BLP/N pointing out the lack of sources. Note this is a declined PROD from 2012 that has not had sources turn up. A Google search turns up one interview on CBC News and a host of his own writing in the Globe and Mail, but I am not seeing the multiple independent coverage required for inclusion per the general notability guidelines. Unless somebody else can dig up more coverage, Caplan is likely not notable enough for an article. Malinaccier (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, 5 years is enough to have gotten acceptable sources. Agricola44 (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Not to be confused with a psychiatrist of the same name. I found this short bio from The Canadian Encyclopedia but thats about it. I could not find multiple reliable sources to verify this WP:BLP. There maybe some sources if someone is willing to wade through his own writings; not sure if WP:PROF applies here. Mattg82 (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The short bio in The Canadian Encyclopedia confirms notability, and also provides claims of significance both as co-chair of two major commissions, and as author of what they call "one of the best books to have appeared on the CCF Party". The book, The Dilemma of Canadian Socialism, also has two published reviews [1] [2], not enough by itself for WP:AUTHOR but adding enough multiple reliably-published in-depth coverage of some of Caplan's work to confirm the notability from the encyclopedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- combination of available coverage, including in The Canadian Encyclopedia and reviews of books establish sufficient notability for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article definitely needs improvement, but in addition to the sources shown above he garners over 1,300 hits in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstream database (and no, that number's not a typo). He's not as visible in the media lately as he was in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, but Wikipedia's notability criteria don't require recent media coverage — if we can dig out old stuff that predates googlability, it still counts toward passage of WP:GNG. Notability ultimately depends more on the existence of quality sources rather than their already being in the article — and the necessary quality of sources is very much out there. Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.