Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Klaper


 * 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) Lourdes  20:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Michael Klaper

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Klaper does not meet WP:GNG, No substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Sources are primary. Does not meet any criteria for WP:AUTHOR 8&#61;&#61;8 Boneso (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Dr. Michael Klaper's role in shaping and informing the American vegetarian movement during the 1980s was profound. This would not be evident to nonvegetarians who did not participate in organized vegetarian events and activities. Admittedly, the current article is bnoth skimy and poorly written poorly sourced, and unbalanced concerning Dr. Klaper's real contributions.  Give us some time to document that and to build the article better. MaynardClark (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator appears not to have followed WP:BEFORE. Contrary to their statement that there is "no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources", such coverage can be found in the following sources, among others:  He was also described in 2004 as one of several "leading advocates of vegetarianism (or veganism)." It is evident that he meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BIO as he appears to be regarded as an "important figure" (NAUTHOR criterion 1) and there is significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning)  talk  23:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with both &amp;  points. There are sufficient citations that show this article subject is Notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. — Lentower (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per and sources including NZ Herald and LA Times. Agree with querying the depth and quality of the WP:BEFORE performed.  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 11:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm waiting to vote as no one has addressed all the comments I made on Talk. Nothing on the current page is valid. Someone needs to take all that out, and bring in the new citations, otherwise we are not going to see what we have. It's all well and good that you say there are citations, but the article needs to be fixed. Sgerbic (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply 1) There is no need to replace ALL of the text or ALL of the citations. They just need to be evaluated by WP:PSTS & other relevant guidelines.  Among other guidelines, WP:AGF directs us to do so.  2) All the text on the page may be valid, but by WP guidelines, we can't verify it.  If enough of it is verified, the text supported just by the primary sources can be left, unless it violates other guidelines.  Again, WP:AGF, & other guidelines, directs us to do so. — Lentower (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply That is fine when it's something like we can't find a citation to prove a college degree or something. But what I listed on the talk page isn't just one or two citations. It is pretty much the whole thing. I'm glad to see that it is being repaired, but we don't just assume good faith for the entire page.Sgerbic (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply Yes, this page needs work by an experienced editor who can bring WP:NPOV, etc. to it. When I edit, I work hard to lean away from any of my biases. — Lentower (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The current article is unsalvageably biased and needs a good dose of TNT applied to it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I removed a bunch of peacock words, some were subtle. I'm still not clear why we have a genealogy in the info box. I've removed the "4 vegan cousins". I can see parents names but that's about it, if his brother is relevant to page or he is notable then I can see that. Also maybe if he is a "royal" someone and people need to know the lineage. I'm still keeping an eye on it. It is very glossy and some of these claims that Klaper is making are setting off red flags for me. I would be a lot more comfortable with the page remaining if there were some notable critical articles from medical experts to weigh in. Because I can't find these articles (notable people) and Klaper's claims are so "out there" I'm suspecting that Klaper isn't "notable" by Wikipedia standards. The people (and organizations) that would be best to look into Klaper's claims and respond, do not seem to be aware of him. If he is the miracle glowing person that this Wikipedia page seems to be saying then where are the endorsements from notable scientists? Surely medical science would be singing his glory? Where is it? Sgerbic (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I have removed the claim that Klaper is notable as one of several "leading advocates of vegetarianism" see the talk page for my reasons for doing so. What we are currently left with a American physician who writes about veganism, speaks at conferences, and states that children should be raised as vegans. Apparently Dr. Spock is in agreement, but I know nothing about that. With this said how is Klaper notable? What makes him different than every other doctor that is also vegan? And "if" he is agreeing with notable Dr. Spock on one issue, then that does not make Klaper notable. Now "if" Dr. Spock were agreeing with Klaper then that would be different, and quite odd as Spock is long gone. So now what? Sgerbic (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, and seriously? Klaper is one of the world's leading advocates for veganism and vegetarianism, and has been for decades. Might as well delete those pages too if this one is up for deletion. Many of the pages I have to come to AfD for (and gladly it's not too often, a depressing corner of Wikipedia) are about subjects which are quite notable, as this one is. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Well then you shouldn't have trouble proving it then. Sgerbic (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep notability is clear.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. By the way, Sgerbic listed 12 citations in Talk:Michael_Klaper that she said are problematic. All 12 have been responded to. Mksword (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is a lot to digest here, firstly the note relating to my abuse of WP:BEFORE:  When looking for references to prove notability I look for references that comply with WP:GNG.  I had read the 3 articles nominated which speak more of the diet that Klaper is promoting that it does about him.  They are certainly not articles that contain Significant coverage that address the topic in detail.  All I can glean from those articles is that Klaper is a former anesthesiologist who switched to general practice and nutritions and that he is promoting a vegan diet, and that he has been a vegan since 1981.  He has been nutrition adviser to NASA and appeared in 2 films.  Only the NZ Herald story is primarily about Klaper and it is a soft interview that is promoting his speaking tour; that article too, says more about the diet he is promoting than the man himself.  Relying on those articles to prove notability smells like WP:ILIKEIT.  As far as WP:AUTHOR is concerned, a single mention in this way in a book on page 228, sounds like a passing mention in a book devoted to a seperate topic in which Klaper does not appear to rate any more than this mention.  I have seen no evidence that he is an important author or widely cited by by his peers. Two books do not make a significant body of work.  A large number of references have been added that I will look at and address in a seperate comment. 8&#61;&#61;8 Boneso  (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Further comment. References added since nomination are mostly to conference sites where Klaper is mentioned once, public record searches, or publications that mention him in passing. One reference to the LA Times doesn’t even mention him at all. This is a serious case of refbombing. Can someone please point me to a reference that indicates notability? And explain how it makes him notable, I am not seeing any significant coverage by an independent reliable source.  8&#61;&#61;8 Boneso  (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to set up a Google Alert for Klaper. I don't know if I'm looking at the same Internet as everyone else, comments here keep talking about Klaper as being notable cause ... well cause everyone knows that. Wikipedia does not work that way. I'm not finding what they say is obvious. I'm trying, but what I'm finding isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Sgerbic (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Further sources to check. I don't have time to work further on this article until well after this AfD closes.17:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Before I first posted on this AfD, I had a quick look at all the "(Find sources … )" links at the top of this AfD. Some look good for notability. — Lentower (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Some of Klaper's work was before the Internet, as well as when the Internet was growing in the early '90s. So for Due Diligence: — Lentower (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Check out the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature for 1980 to 1999. — Lentower (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Go into a decent library to check other print indexes to publications for those two decades. For scholarly work, a good reference library is needed -- e.g. at better Universities & College, the Research Branch of the NYC Public Library, the Library of Congress, etc. — Lentower (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Check out the PBS video mentioned in the article, and add a with the timestamp(s) of Klaper's segment(s). If its behind PBS's new paywall Passport, please comment here -- another editor might have Passport access.  (Not all of PBS' content is paywalled.) — Lentower (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Somebody has a wrong idea of what footnotes are for. The purpose of a footnote is to authenticate, clarify, illustrate, or elucidate something that's in the text of the article. Footnotes in this Michael Klaper article don't need to be about Michael Klaper. Mksword (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2018 (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.