Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soren 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The result was   keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Soren Kaplan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC, as only an "Affiliated Professor" in the US. Edwardx (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 11:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG with sources already present in the article and further updated based on request from this AfD. Includes additional articles and sources quoting him as a source on VICE and a book review from HuffPost. Mcvalley (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Mcvalley, that HuffPost review is a blog post, so does not count towards GNG. Please point us to two sources that count towards GNG. And as the article creator, please address the COI issues raised on your talkpage. Edwardx (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This WSJ article is ... fascinating. While it doesn't have any direct bearing on this deletion discussion, I think it implies that we need to be extra careful in ensuring that any "independent" sources cited, are, in fact, truly independent. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Suffusion of Yellow. Fascinating indeed. I suppose that one might argue that there is enough in that WSJ piece for that to be one of the two sources that could count towards GNG. However, our Soren Kaplan article would have to set out that he spent $55,000 on buying copies of his own book plus a fee of $20-$30,000 to make it a "bestseller". Edwardx (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to the hard work of Philafrenzy, the article now meets WP:NPOV, and there is enough to meet WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.