Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kaplan

This person isn't particularly article worthy. The only reason he has an article now is that YTMND has latched onto him and made him a quasi fad. Until he does something noticeable/recognizable, I feel this page should be deleted. StvnLunsford 02:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De-Lee-te so it can fly free tenaciously. Danny Lilithborne 02:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Jared Hunt August 20, 2006, 15:44 (UTC)
Keep Google return thouthands links on him. Very notable. Nomination for deletion looks like POV to me. TestPilot 23:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me what search terms you used? "Lee Kaplan" seems to mostly return other people. ~~Also, throwing out spurious, conclusory allegations is most unwelcome.~~JChap2007 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I used "Lee Kaplan DAFKA" - Google return 22 000 hits. I actually did not tryed any other search. I belive there is not so many Lee Kaplan's associated with DAFKA. And 22000 is A LOT of web pages, way more than enough to say that guy notable enough to have article on him. TestPilot 14:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, throwing out spurious, conclusory allegations is most unwelcome. WHAAT??? I just saying that saying something like The only reason he has an article now is that YTMND has latched onto him is a POV. POV stand for "point of view". This is fact, not a "conclusory allegations".TestPilot 14:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I misread you. I thought you were accusing the nominator of bad faith. I probably need to brush up on WP:AGF myself! JChap2007 23:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyvio. [1] JChap2007 14:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lee Kaplan himself here, I think he might want to clarify that. At least he left msg on my page. TestPilot 14:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone clarify this? The article looks like a cut-and-paste from his FrontPageMag.com bio. Was this content in fact released under GFDL? JChap2007 23:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, calling us anti-Semites. I'll agree, I did let POV sneak into my deletion nomination, but I still haven't seen anything to make him truly

notable.StvnLunsford 15:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV and spite is never a reason to VFD something, for future reference. I've had to deal with such VFDs in the past, one of which was kept. Sir Crazyswordsman 17:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lee Kaplan's DAFKA is a commonly-cited reference in debates on the Middle East. In fact, Google shows that more than 12,000 Web sites contain the link dafka.org. Kaplan's other work has also been cited very frequently in debates on the Middle East. --Bill Levinson 16:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm a YTMNDer myself and don't think he's notable even within the context of YTMND. If we want to talk about what YTMND fads are popular, and which we can merge with the YTMND article, we can. But this certainly isn't one of them. Sir Crazyswordsman 17:15, 22 August 2006 (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.