Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ari L. 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. PhilKnight (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ari L. Kaplan

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable. His claim to fame is being director of a department in a non-notable company and producing an unnamed documentary. Google hits turn up different Ari Kaplans. SmashvilleBONK! 22:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, it's a poorly-written article at this point, but the beauty of Wikipedia is that such articles improve over time. A quick google search turns up the Trailer for the documentary, and see that he is a reporter for the Jerusalem Post and Daily Telegraph. (Jerusalem Post and Daily Telegraph, to prove they are both legitimate, large media chains) Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All that proves is that he made a documentary and that he has a job. Neither establish notablity. --SmashvilleBONK! 03:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Reporting for a newspaper doesn't ipso facto make one notable. Otherwise, there would be tens of thousands of bios of people that reported for newspapers. Wikipedia isn't the facebook for reporters. For a reporter to be notable s/he must satisfy the wp:bio requirements. Did this reporter received significant coverage in reliable sources? Is this reporter widely respected by his/her peers? An affirmative answer to any of theses questions would satisfy the wp:bio notability policy. However, this article has been around since October, and has yet to show how this person meets wp:bio. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- disclaimer, I started the article.
 * I think the dividing line between a reporter who doesn't merit coverage here, and one who does, is: "has his or her work been discussed in other authoritative references?" I suggest Kaplan passes this test.  Geo Swan (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Where are these authoritative references? --SmashvilleBONK! 13:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: the subject's company's lack of notability is nom's opinion, having only concurrently filed an AfD on it. DMacks (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you think I have some sort of agenda. I discovered a spam link on Belmont Stakes and tracked the edits by the person that added it...and in the process discovered these two articles. --SmashvilleBONK! 05:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, just to make it plain that that there are related issues here (personally I haven't decided about this person yet). DMacks (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - A passing reference to the work of a director does not make the director notable. The work itself is also of marginal notability and there don't appear to be an abundance of references to it, anyway. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Concurrently, if none of a director's works have articles or subsections on the encyclopedia, the director usually doesn't get one either. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Looks like a nice little jurist-stub. Sadly, none of the sources are reliable.  There's his own sites, an alumni magazine, the commercial listing at law.com, and not much else.  That does not verify his notability as a living director, an attorney, or a reporter.  I'd change my mind if there was a review of the documentary on a TV station, or a major periodical (other than one for which he writes).  There are a million lawyers, me included, and we are not all notable.  Sorry, maybe later, when the film gets reviewed. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2008 (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.