Talk:Jeffrey Kaplan (philosopher)

AfC review

@Victor Zaak Saraiva| You can't delete an AfC comment.
@Theroadislong Btw: I added "[insert year]" several edits back as an indication to VZS that he should find and insert it.
@Thilio Btw: I think outstanding is part of the name of those two awards. Is there anything else?
- MmeMaigret (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't know I couldn't delete AfC comments. Did it because we clearly didn't use AI and was scared someone would delete the whole draft because of it. About the date where he started lecturing at UNC Greensboro, I've found 2 sources but they're both primary and not independent. Will add them both regardless and will trust your judgment whether they are enough or should be deleted Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret Thanks, I verified the source, and your right :). Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 06:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Ready to resubmit?

Too self-promotional.

I think there's enough citations and sources attesting Prof. Jeffrey Kaplan's notability in order to resubmit. Also, @Mmemaigret has been doing some great editing and the article looks great. The day I created the draft I added a headshot of Professor Kaplan in order to help distinguish him from the other 2 Kaplans with articles here at Wikipedia but someone took it down. The headshot is freely distributed in his Blog and I emailed him beforehand asking explicitly whether I could use his image for this Article and he agreed, but before I could go through the process of sending him an email the image was taken down, so I guess we should publish the Article and encourage him to upload his picture to wikimedia by himself? Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

There are still problems. For example, what about the claim that he has won six teaching awards? The first ref only claims five awards, and neither ref names them. You list five awards, but it appears that two of them, the Dean's Award for the Promotion of Diversity and Inclusiveness and the Outstanding First Year Student Advocate Award, are not actually for teaching. And why would this be mentioned in the lead? Local teaching awards are not leadworthy. Meters (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The first ref claimed five awards because it was outdated. The fact that they don't specifically name the awards seems irrelevant because I have found sources directly citing most of those awards elsewhere. I have primary, self-published sources on the 6 awards if it is deemed appropriate. I'll be moving the Dean's Award to another list because indeed it is not a teaching award. However, from what I could gather the Student Advocate Award is. I'll remove the explicit statements from the lead and only mention he has won awards for his work. Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Victor Zaak Saraiva You keep asserting that he is notable but he doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria for inclusion in WP. There are two ways to qualify for an article:

(1) general notability requirements, which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, which you don't have. Wikipedia simply cannot be the first place he is ever discussed in depth; or

(2) presumed notability - I don't see how he meets any of the criteria.

- MmeMaigret (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Has he not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", thus meeting the basic criteria? It appears to be so since he has been talked about in quite depth (his work, education and personal life) by multiple newspapers, the official website of the UNC Greensboro a few times and also by the website of the State of North Carolina. There have also been mentions of him by the Solomon Schechter Day School and the Summit Rotary Club of Greensboro. There are also many mentions of him by the Student Newspaper of Williams College and the Official website of said College. There are sources in the articles for all of these mentions.

Also, has he not met the additional criteria described in WP:PERSON?: "

1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"

Also, he has received the highest Award/Honor a State Professor may receive in the State of North Carolina, thus meeting WP:ACADEMIC criteria n. 2. He has also received a Humanities Teaching Fellowship at UC Berkeley, one of the top 10 institutions in the world in the field of Philosophy, so he has also met criteria n. 3. It seems to me more than clear that he is notable Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Teaching awards, whether it's 5 or 6, don't really contribute to his notability, and should not be mentioned in the lead at all.

I'm inclined to agree with Mmemaigret. I'm really not seeing notability here. He's won some awards, but are any of them at the national or international level? Most of the article is just run of the mill academic coverage... he wrote a dissertation and has a PhD, he's written some papers, he teaches university courses... none of this is notable. The successful YouTube channel of lectures is a bit unusual for an academic, but again, not particularly notable. I think this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. He's a young academic and I don't see that he meets any of WP:NACADEMIC's criteria. You explicitly claim on your talk page that he meets criteria 1 and 2; however, you have not shown that "the person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" (criterion 1), and the state award is certainly not "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" (criterion 2). How could you possibly think that a North Carolina state award is a national or international award? As for criterion 3, no, a teaching fellowship at Berkley is certainly not being "an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association". Mention of him in student newspapers, college websites, employers' websites or publications, by the Rotary club, etc are all irrelevant.

You think he's notable. Experienced editors are telling you, by Wikipedia standards, he's not, at least yet. Meters (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

When you say that Mention of him in student newspapers, college websites, employers' websites or publications, by the Rotary club, etc are all irrelevant you are literally ignoring the basic guideline for notability:

A person can be notable if they have been written about in many published secondary sources.

When you say You're missing the point. Teaching awards, whether it's 5 or 6, don't really contribute to his notability, and should not be mentioned in the lead at all you're ignoring the additional criteria as per WP:ANYBIO:

1. The person has been given a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.

He has won several awards, including the highest one in the State of NC. Thus, basic guideline and additional criteria have already been demonstrated more than enough. About the 3rd criteria on WP:ACADEMIC, you have purposely left out the part which says:

or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor

.

As you may have read, he was a teaching fellow by the Towsend Center for the Humanities at Berkeley. He was also a fellow for the Dr. Herchel Smith Fund at Cambridge, one of the most renowned in England. There are multiple sources in the draft for you to look up.

I understand that you may be experienced but that's not the subject. It seems you have a fundamentally restrictive view of published secondary sources which Wikipedia itself does not support.

The definition of what a "published work" is covers all types of publications

I'm open to your ideas on how to build consensus. Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

For the third time, a state award is not a national or international level award. The teaching awards are even less significant. And a Berkley teaching fellowship is not the equivalent of being "a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics)".

This isn't a question of consensus. You think think he is notable and that you have demonstrated that in your draft. So far no-one else agrees with you. Repeating yourself over and over isn't going to change anything. I don't think this draft shows notability. If you can provide more information that goes to showing his notability I'll look at it, but I'm not going to argue about what you've given us so far. You simply don't understand WP:PROF. Meters (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for repeating what you stated before, but could you please explain how he does not fulfill the basic guideline and the additional criteria as per WP:ANYBIO? Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Victor Zaak Saraiva Forget all the schools - they're all related to him. What are 3 best newspaper sources you've got - which discuss him for more than 250 words? (They have to be different papers - not different articles in the same paper.) MmeMaigret (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Yup, by not notable yet, I'm going by what's in the draft so far. Meters (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems you're mistaken. Williams College, Cambridge and Berkeley have no relation to him. UNCG is related in the sense that they are his employer, but it does not mean that the source is not independent. But sure, besides both articles about him by the times of israel, there's this one by bigthink, this one by The Mirror. PBS has also made a story about the history of his mother who was a 9/11 victim and how it impacted him and his career Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Victor Zaak Saraiva: You're getting closer with Big Think and The Mirror but, while the articles are long enough, the content about him isn't. The PBS story is an interview with the subject, which can't be used to establish significant coverage. MmeMaigret (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but it seems you're being overly pedantic and that even after being handed what you asked, you won't change your position. Even if what you said was true, refer to WP:PERSON:

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability

Neither of the provided publications are trivial, and they are each in fact substantial. How do you propose we reach consensus if dozens of independent, secondary sources about this person won't demonstrate notability? Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

You don't need to reach a consensus with me. Feel free to resubmit it for review. MmeMaigret (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)