Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Kantor


 * 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. (non-admin closure)Nrswanson (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth Kantor

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

This is someone who has aparrently been involved with several successful companies, but nothing indicates that there is individual notability - WP:BIO has not been met. Ros0709 (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, probably Speedy procedural close, and please be more careful to review articles and sources, and understand notability policy, before making speedy and AfD nominations. This article was speedy nominated twice, and AfD within 1 hour of creation.  The claim of notability is clearly stated in the opening of the lead: he "helped shape the modern loudspeaker industry."  I don't know if that is fully supported by the sources because I just found the article and was actively working on it.  However, despite the messiness and quite possible COI of a SPA creating this as a first article, there is significant substance to the piece, and plenty of sourcing to significant mentions in major reliable sources within the industry, so that there is no question about meeting WP:BIO - Stereo, Soundstage, Wired Magazine.  I spot checked a few of these sources and they check out that he's a respected audio engineer and co-founder of a notable audio company.Wikidemon (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My concern was, and to some extent still is, that whilst he was clearly involved in some notable companies, the article may be attributing more to the individual than is justified. I have further found a number of interviews with him, so he's clearly a noted expert in the field and for that reason now think that WP:BIO has been met, but care is needed in thoroughly reviewing the claims in the article. That aside, I believe I do well understand notability policy; your opening sentence is dangerously close to WP:NPA. I should add that when two editors feel an article is worth tagging for speedy deletion for different reasons, there is possibly some substance to the assertions. It was 'disappointing' that they got removed with the dismissals "rm silly tag" and "nope - obviously not" - and it was largely due to these that I thought it worth taking the article to AfD for a more considered opinion. Ros0709 (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The two speedy tags were obviously inappropriate - calling it "blatant advertising" or "no assertion of notability" is so far off the mark that a bit of policy review is in order. The substance is that it's a poorly written and sourced article.  Aggressively tagging new articles in that way has become a problem here so, again, please do be more careful.Wikidemon (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep if this continues to be edited. I'll believe the proof of the guy's notability, but the article still reads like a promotional piece (I'd take care of that, but Wikidemon has put in some work already). Moreover, I note that there isn't a specific thing mentioned that he actually DID--what are these 'innovative products and technologies'? There's a ton of fluff in this article, and without some actual technological goods, it shouldn't be more than two sentences long. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. More evidence of notability is available from Google News and Google Books . Phil Bridger (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- raven1977 (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   -- raven1977 (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources support notability. I'd also like to add that per WP:AFD, there are actions that would have been more appropriate before taking this to a deletion discussion, especially given that the article was less than an hour old.  If notability is in doubt, then there is the notability tag that can be used.  In this case, given the subjects involvement in multiple successful companies and some exeternal links provided for doiing research, AFD does not seem like the best next step. -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 21 October 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.