Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip J. Kaplan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 - no delete votes (safe for nom) in this discussion, consensus is to keep. --JForget 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip J. Kaplan[edit]

Philip J. Kaplan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Proposed delete, or merge to Fucked Company. I can not find any separate claim to WP:BIO standards in the history or on google. The page is vandalized often and the history looks like a battle between the subject and some people who used the Fucked Company message boards who do not like him. As the manager of products at a small internet-ad company subject is not notable per WP:BIO. Notoriety on a single small message board does not meet WP:BIO ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, I am not either, but Fucked Company looks like it received some minor coverage in its day. I thought about adding a tag to that page but I am not confident one way or the other about the company's notability. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject meets WP:BIO being notable not just for the creation of Fucked Company, but also the subsequent book which was published, F'd Companies, and the later creation of AdBrite. If this person were notable for just one event I might be able to support a merge, but that wouldn't make sense at all in this situation. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 22:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is a good point that those too have to be considered, but after reviewing WP:BIO and WP:NOT carefully, I do not think the subject's book or his involvement in founding a small ad company is notable. The AdBrite page can say it was founded by the subject, and the F'd company page can say that too. Neither association makes the subject himself notable per WP:BIO in my understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiselfpromotion (talk • contribs) 23:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Fucked Company, which received some pretty significant press in its day. I don't think there's enough for an article on the man himself. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is ample notability about the subject as demonstrated above. He was also featured in the documentary film called BBS Documentary. [1] I'm not sure why the nominator is attempting to trivialize the achievements of this individual but I find it borderline inappropriate. RFerreira (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please assume good faith. That documentary interviewed 75 mostly non-notable people and was already a link on the subject's page. I am not attempting to trivialize anyone's achievements. Notability is not about achievement. I nominated for AfD because the subject is not notable per our guidelines. I have nothing against the subject and am in favor of a merge. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your user name is "Antiselfpromotion", I'm not sure how much good faith you're expecting here. Furthermore, to call AdBrite a "small ad company" when it is the sixth largest ad server in the world is most certainly trivializing, and inappropriately so. RFerreira (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per coccyx bloccyx. bbx (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per coccyx bloccyx, I believe this meets WP:BIO guidelines. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"'Keep - Anyone who has 116 mentions in legitimate news outlets is notable. End of discussion. And that's just the ones that use the middle initial, which is probably 20% of his total press mentions. Source: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22philip+j.+kaplan%22&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.195.109 (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment most of these links are not even about this Philip J. Kaplan, but another one. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think he's sufficiently notable. Also, frequent vandalism is not a justification for deletion. DWaterson (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philip_J._Kaplan&oldid=1138227357"