Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Klass


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Dan Klass

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non notable podcaster. NYT ref has an in-passing mention, but the rest are all selfpub or blogs. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    19:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    19:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now until a better article and better sources can be found. SwisterTwister   talk  04:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete David Condrey   log talk  00:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional and updated links added recently. Why is this page, up since 2007, suddenly up for deletion? What has changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.70.101.238 (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * nominator comment (possible weak keep) The subject of the article has added several sources, which may indicate possible notability. The Christian Science Monitor article is definately an in depth source and if there were 3-4 more like it this would be an easy keep. That article plus the wgbh interview and the in-passing book refs make me rethink this a bit, but its certainly very marginal. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep In the podcasting world this guy is a legend and has significance to the original podcast community. These cult hero's need to stay to show that podcasting was one about stories the avarage person was telling and not part of the big media machine of today. JBignell (talk)


 * +1 to Keep I know Dan from my days as a podcaster and he is, indeed, one of the legends of the podcasting world. Talk of deleting this page is unworthy of Wikipedia. parkylondon (talk)Parkylondon (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Parkylondon (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Mr. Klass co-authored a book about podcasting called "Podcast Solutions" which went to #26 on Amazon in the category designated for its topic - making him a subject matter expert. Mr. Klass was one of very few early podcasters and his podcast is still running after 10 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robusdin (talk • contribs) 20:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)  — Robusdin (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete as per nom. Even the New York Times piece is only a glancing mention - hardly notability. I am just curious where suddenly editors who haven't edited for years, or ever before, suddenly come from ?  Velella  Velella Talk 20:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete There is one in-depth Reliable Source article about him: the Christian Science Monitor. There is a New York Times article that gives him a short paragraph, as it does half a dozen other people. The rest of the references are self-referential or non-Reliable. I don't think this amounts to notability as Wikipedia defines it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's sad to think that to be a "notable podcaster." you have to be mainstream! When the whole idea began it was an underground radio listened to by a niche internet user. Some of the best podcast in the early days where not mainstream or even looked at by major media. I remember talking to my web developer in 2005, who told me podcasting will be a "flash in a pan", and don't waste my time with it. Today people have made their careers around podcasting. JBignell (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per nom and several of the above editors, particularly Velella and MelanieN, whose assessment and observations are spot on.
 * I don't care anymore, please just make it stop - Hey, all.  Dan Klass here.  Non-noteworthy subject of this page (and its dispute). Dont' worry, I'm not here to argue the page be kept up. Over the past week or so, I've learned a lot about Wikipedia's policies on proving if someone is "Notable" enough to have their own article.  My article on Lance Anderson never stood a chance.  Doesn't look like this one does either.  You guys have yor guidelines and you stick by them, so debate seems futile.  But, before this conversation comes to an end, I'd love to ask, for the record, do any of you know WHY Wikipedia holds these pages to those specific requirements (3-5 "in-depth articles)?   I know why there are guidelines.  That's so you can edit pages on topics you know nothing about.  Do you know WHY the MO of so many editors is to delete pages rather than simply verify the information?  I am very curious, on a much larger scale, to know what it is Wikipedia is protecting by not including articles (rather, excluding articles) on minor or unreported players in major events/discoveries/trends/etc.  Why is it important to have fewer pages/articles? Thank you for any insight you have in this matter.  And, thanks to everyone who threw in their two cents re: keeping the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danklass (talk • contribs) 17:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Simple answer Dan is that as an editor you are free to join in and help set the rules, change the rules, persuade others and make Wikipedia what you think it ought to be . All the rules are established by the consensus of editors. There is no major cabal or omnipotent force out there - its just us. If we've got it wrong, then it can be changed. Persuade us.  Velella  Velella Talk  17:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Velella, I'll try. :) So, I understand all information on Wikipedia must be verifiable, which is obviously a given. Where I get hung up is the value judgment of whether or not the subject of an article is "notable" enough to warrant its page. The guidelines, as they were explained to me by another editor, include a requirement of "3-5 in-depth articles." But, if a person has had three to five in-depth articles written about them I don't need Wikipedia to find out about them. Google might easily cough up those articles in a simple search. Where Wikipedia could really be a useful tool is in fining information about people who have NOT been covered in-depth in the media. For example, I went to school with a guy named Glenn Green who is now a professor at the University of Michigan and one of the leading Otolaryngologists in the country. He has made amazing recent breakthroughs in the use of 3-D printed shunts and other custom-made medical devises, saving lives and restoring senses as he goes. As far as I can tell, he would not qualify as "notable" in Wikipedia. Why? Because his work is so extraordinary, the work gets all the ink, not him. What he *does* is notable, but is he? Okay, maybe that's a bad example, since nobody would argue that someone isn't notable if they're restoring hearing to children with plastic tubes. Here's a more practical example. I created a page recently for the podcaster Lance Anderson. Now, it's being argued that he is not "notable." BUT, his name and accomplishments are "noted" on several other pages in Wikipedia. Why wouldn't that automatically dictate that the site needs a page for him? Doesn't it follow that the site is stronger if each name referred to had a link to a page specific to that person? What is the downside of me being able to click on Lance's name in the "History of Podcasting" and going to his page? What is the upside of NOT having a page specific to Lance? Again, nobody is arguing whether or not he is part of the history of podcasting, only whether it is notable within the context of the general public. His notability within the context of podcasting doesn't seem relevant to the current editors of Wikipedia, or they'd just take the word of an expert in the field (yours truly) and move on. Instead there is a layer of value judgment, base on what other journalists have written extensively about. In my experience with the news media, they never get the whole story. How could they? Mainstream media is limited by time and available print space. Wikipedia is not. The mainstream media will never be able to cover a topic in the depth it deserves. But, Wikipedia CAN. Couldn’t we proceed as if Wikipedia is a warehouse of all knowledge? If so, then even an "in-passing mention" would warrant a person being included in Wikipedia. The author of the article thought the person was worthy of "noting" in the article, who are we to judge that as not noteworthy enough? Information is information. Would Wikipedia be weaker or stronger with more articles on people? Would it crumble under it's own weight if everyone were listed? I doubt it. Each page is, what, 40k? Danklass (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Dan, I understand your frustration, and I'll try to explain. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. As such, it summarizes what is already on the public record. It does not publish original research, or write articles about subjects that "have not been covered in-depth by the media" or other reliable secondary sources. There are plenty of other places on the internet that do promote relatively unknown people or ideas, but not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is by its very definition "mainstream", that is, verifiable by independent reliable sources, which includes not just the media but books, scholarly journals, etc. Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia, is absolutely not a place where you can find information about people who have not been covered elsewhere. We write about people AFTER they become notable, not before. As you noted we do have an extensive article at History of podcasting, and many of the early players are mentioned there, whether or not they have enough outside coverage for an article of their own. So if an article of interest to you gets deleted, you can still add information about them to other relevant articles. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Melanie, I think I have a different vision for the depth of Wikipedia than the editors do. I am not suggesting Wikipedia cover unknowns. I'm suggesting that when an expert in a field writes an article about someone who has received "in-passing mentions" in several  major media, that that person might warrant their own article within Wikipedia. I seek to expand Wikipedia, you all seem to want to limit Wikipedia.  Yes, "we" write about people AFTER they become notable, and then someone comes along and puts the page up for deletion.  Why must the site simply be a reflection of the dying mass media? They don't know who's notable unless they read it in a press release. Mainstream?  Yes.  But we're no longer bound to old definitions of mainstream. I look to widen the stream.  You are building dams.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danklass (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 October 2015 (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.