Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morton 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   keep. Valley2 city ‽ 06:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Morton Kaplan

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

This person does not seem to meet WP:Notability. He was a professor and the editor of an minor magazine but no other information about him is given. There are also no secondary sources. Borock (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (Change to Keep) I met this person, but that does not make him notable. A couple of years ago I questioned this article on its talk page and nothing has been done to help it since.  As the nominator says there is no substantial information or sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I met him when he spoke at our church in Chicago. I thought he was just an opinionated college professor, although a nice guy, and had no idea of his importance in the world of political science. Now that I have learned more I am changing my vote to keep. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to be widely cited, and I'm turning up things like . This might be puffery, but it's there. He's described in this paper as influential in his field.  I think that's a peer reviewed journal article.  I think that about meets Notability (academics).  I think teh shame here is that this is the sort of person we should have an article on, and we're failing, not that this should be deleted. Hiding T 19:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —John Z (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I didn't have an opinion, but after just looking around the web for a few minutes, it's clear he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Here's some of what I found:
 * There's also a physicist named "Morton Kaplan," but our Morton Kaplan seems to have authored at least half of the 258 publications that come up in an advanced Google Scholar search.
 * He "held numerous academic and administrative posts" including: Chairman of Committee on International Relations, University of Chicago. Director of Faculty Arms Control and Foreign Policy Seminar, Center for Policy Study, University of Chicago. Board of Governors and the Research Committee, STRATIS, The Israeli Institute for Strategic Studies and Policy Analysis.
 * Dr. Kaplan is referenced in Who's Who in America, American Men of Science, Who's Who in World Science from Antiquity to the Present, and Who's Who in the World.
 * The fact that the article is woefully inadequate has no bearing on the notability issue. -Exucmember (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Provisional keep I did a quick run through ProQuest, and found a book review in National Review and a mention of him in The Atlantic--both from 1977. I don't see any direct evidence of him meeting WP:ACADEMIC, but he may well meet the GNG, per the relevant hits in google news. Jclemens (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep An exceptionally distinguished political scientist, with dozens of major books to his credit: I added them all. . The publication of this may academic books from high quality specialized publishers shows acceptance as an authority. I didnt look up holdings, and reviews orf them, because it seemed a little unnecessary to show the extent to which he is regarded as an authority. That information should be added, though, for completeness., I point out that being included in any Whos Who is not aken here to mean very much, as the are considered both unreliable and somewhat indiscriminate. AMS (now SMWS) is fairly reliable, but not at all selective.DGG (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I wasn't aware of much of this information when I nominated the article for deletion. Maybe the article should be kept.  But shouldn't there be something that sources have said about him?  Even reviews of his books? Otherwise WP is just a Who's who. Borock (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There has been a trend in the last two years of deleting anyone associated with Rev. Moon, apparently on the grounds that Wikipedia should not be used for endorsing him. Well, I say that if the person is prominent enough for an article, than our guidelines say to keep the article. It's just too bad for people who are trying to marginalize Moon and his movement. If prominent people choose to associate themselves with him, that's their business. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't nominate Dr. Kaplan's article in order to persecute the Unification Church. When I made the nomination it had no sources and almost no information. Some information has now been added, but still no secondary sources which discuss him in depth.Borock (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), and possibly other criteria as well. Citation impact indicates notability. Has at least one book, The Many faces of communism, currently in more than 1,000 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. The article is a mess; I went ahead and did some serious editing.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I found this on the PWPA web site:
 * "His path-breaking book, System and Process in International Politics (1957), began the scientific study of international relations. It was one of the first three volumes republished by the European Consortium for Political Research in their classics of political science series. His numerous other books include Science, Language and the Human Condition, and Law in a Democratic Society. He is one of the few writers who has taken a synoptic approach to philosophy while using analytic techniques."
 * Although an independent source should be found before similar claims be put in a Wikipedia article, you'd have to believe that PWPA was wildly lying to assert that he's not notable. -Exucmember (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2009 (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.