User talk:Csbruggers

Welcome!

Hello, Csbruggers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Wizard191 (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to create an informational page on this company, Myogauge Corp. I know there are rules against promotional pages. Could an admin please give me some guidance on how to build a page without risk of deletion? Csbruggers (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Myogauge Pics 003.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Myogauge Pics 003.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 06:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Myogauge-logo.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Myogauge-logo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Stan Kaplan.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Stan Kaplan.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Anchor bolt, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Wizard191 (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Athletic trainer. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to spam or promote for Myogauge. We are an established business with a very real technology. The founder Stanley Kaplan is a historical figure by many people's standards, and ultimately I am more interested in seeing him get the credit for his life achievements. He has dozens of design patents to his credit, but his fascinating story has been all but lost in history. Myogauge deserves an explanation on Wikipedia and Stanley deserves recognition. Please bear with me as I learn the ins and outs of safely building pages about companies. Csbruggers (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Myogauge Corp.

The article Myogauge Corp. has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Reads like an ad, no refs. Creator been spamming articles with links/redirects to this page/affiliation documented on talk

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fama Clamosa (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article. It is not an advertisement. It is an informational page. The founder Stanley Kaplan is in fact a major contributor to the history and development of the construction hardware industry. Ultimately I am more interested in helping Stan be recognized being that he is 81 and deserves it. We have a lot of people asking us for information about him and about Myogauge and wondering why they are not on Wikipedia. The reason I am adding links to other pages is because I was told to do so by an admin. I am a new contributor to Wikipedia but a very frequent reader. I do understand and appreciate the rules. I am simply trying to learn the ins and outs. Please be patient with me. Thank you. Csbruggers (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Csbruggers! As the article currently stands, it will probably be deleted. My advice is not to worry about it and instead work on the copy you have in your userspace, User:Csbruggers/Myogauge_Corp.. You'll need to find sources that meet WP:CORP, sources with significant coverage of Myogauge Corp written by reliable sources. Because you have a conflict of interest in writing this article, it would be best if you had some editors review the userspace copy before trying to make another regular article on the topic. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed information on how to write an article is here: WP:YFA --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Csbruggers, good luck promoting your personal friend. However, you are apparently the vice president of the company. Convincing Wikipedia readers that you can write this article from a netural point of view will probably be difficult. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am trying to be very open about this. I do work for Stanley Kaplan, and I am involved with Myogauge. I feel that the information I have presented is entirely objective. There is no promotional language only facts. It has to be possible for someone who works for a company to contribute to the explanation of it's product, they are the people who know the most about it. All I am trying to do is explain the technology and give Stan the credit for inventing it. People are constantly asking me why this is not on Wikipedia and why Stan doesn't have a page. Stanley deserves credit for his life's accomplishments. Since his earlier accomplishments were all prior to the Internet, it seems logical to work back from his most recent accomplishment, which is Myogauge. Csbruggers (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of requests of help on article talk page

I hope you don't mind that I've copied your requests for help here in case the article is deleted. --Ronz (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, not at all. I can use the help. I am glad a non-confrontational admin is helping me now. Wikipedia is one of the best projects on earth in my opinion and I totally respect the rules. I read Wikipedia for hours a day, but this is my first attempt at contributing something. I am legitimately trying to give credit to someone who deserves it, while also objectively explaining Myogauge, a real technology that is quickly becoming generally accepted. Csbruggers (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

I would like to create an informational page for Myogauge Corp. I am not an experienced Wikipedia writer but I know there are strict rules against writing promotional entries. Could an admin please assist me in building this page so that we can avoid deletion? Csbruggers (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the VP of Communications for Myogauge, and a personal friend of Stanley Kaplan. I can corroborate and substantiate all the information I have offered in this entry. I have attempted to list some good web based references, but being that The CEO is 81 going on 82, the vast majority of the company's documentation still exists only in hard copy. This is why I am now working to flesh out our online presence. Please also see our facebook page for more documentation, including pictures of the system in the field and marketing material that lists corporate partners such as Synergy Fitness in New York. Csbruggers (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I am not trying to spam or promote for Myogauge. We are an established business with a very real technology. The founder Stanley Kaplan is a historical figure by many accounts, and ultimately I am more interested in seeing him get the credit for his life achievements than furthering Myogauge. I do work for him, but this is not a conflict of interest. I am more of a biographer than a marketeer. This is the first of many steps I will take to immortalize Stan. I figured that starting with his most recent achievement, that being Myogauge, is a good way to work towards a page about him. Stan has dozens of design patents to his credit, but his fascinating life story has been all but lost in history. Myogauge deserves an explanation on Wikipedia and Stanley deserves recognition. I am working on locating patent and copyright numbers that bear his name to work as objective references. Please bear with me as I learn the ins and outs of safely building pages about companies and historical figures. Thank you. Csbruggers (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest Concern Further Explained

I keep getting messaged about conflict of interest issues. I understand the concern, I do work for Myogauge. In my opinion people who work for a company have to be able to contribute to the explanation of it's products since they usually know it better than most. As long as the information is objective and factual the conflict of interest should be a moot point. If a third party admin would be willing to let me substantiate the information outside the confines of Wikipedia, so that they would be willing to endorse the article, that would be great. Csbruggers (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi. Conflict of interest need not be established by actual connection. It can be inferred by connection. When a person joins Wikipedia to create and edit a single article, or a small group of related articles, particularly for businesses, products or individuals of disputed notability, the community refers to it as a "single purpose account" (see WP:SPA). As you can see from that article, SPAs are subjected to a particularly high level of scrutiny, as experience tells us that the vast majority of SPAs are not interested in learning or respecting Wikipedia's content policies but are instead interested in subverting Wikipedia's goal of creating an encyclopaedia in order to push a particular viewpoint or promote a particular topic. Our policy is to assume good faith, and therefore we assume that you are honestly attempting to increase the quality of Wikipedia's coverage of a notable topic, but you should not be surprised that myself and other editors are vigorous in requiring that your contributions comply with our content policies. My best advice would be to slow down, explore some other areas of Wikipedia, learn our policies, and start off by making small contributions (such as fixing typos) in articles you are not personally connected to. When you have a sense of what does and does not work on Wikipedia, come back to your topics of interest and create strong, well-sourced articles that will survive a deletion process. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Take the time to read our policies. If you carefully read WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:N you will see you are getting worked up about nothing. There is no requirement that sources be online or be recent. Ideally you would have taken the time to read these before creating a contentious article but better late than never. The best way to get what you want on Wikipedia is to know the policies and understand how they have worked in relation to other articles. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised this article is being contended. I am just legitimately certain it meats notoriety requirements. Especially the part about Stan Kaplan. I can substantiate them web based with the patent information, I just can't do it this instant. This is not an SPA situation. I don't make tons of edits and contributions, but I read hundreds of articles about everything under the sun. I wish I could submit my time clock of how much time I spend reading Wikipedia as an exhibit. I feel I am a valuable member of the community and I understand the spirit of Wikipedia just as well as anyone. I am a trial by fire kind of guy. I am learning about how to write articles through this ongoing discussion and I plan to clean up this article and contribute more over time. I am appreciative of your comments. I am a believer in this project and I want to see it maintain it's integrity as much as you do. Csbruggers (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy the Myogauge article to your user space and work on it there. This will give you the time to improve it regardless of whether the 'public' version is deleted. When it is of an appropriate standard you may copy it back to the mainspace and if you have appropriately sourced it to significant coverage in reliable independent sources it should not be further bothered. I would be willing to assist if you are unsure how to use your user space or how to move articles into or out of it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have already copied it into my user page section so it is salvageable if deleted. I didn't come into this as unprepared or un-researched as it seems, I just knew it was going to be a battle. I totally understand why promotional articles should not be allowed, I am just suggesting that this is not in effect a promotional article but a biographical and informational one. I will always been trying to improve the article, but if the live one is deleted I will try and tie up the loose ends before resubmitting it. Csbruggers (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Hello, I see you mentioning patents as possible reliable sources. Patents by themselves can't establish notability for an inventor, because they describe the invention rather than the inventor. Also, you should stop talking about the lack of online references, and the lack of recent references. I have used references that were unavailable online, and that were published decades ago. The only requirements are that they are reliable, verifiable, independent of the subject, and subject to professional editorial control and fact checking. Obviously, online references are often used, because they are easier to find and verify, but it is by no means necessary that references be recent or available online. Cullen328 (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a gym in Jacksonville we love our Myogauge... I'm surprised it's not in Wikipedia already... crazy... Stan Kaplan is brilliant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Fitness904 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe patents do contain the name of the inventor. As long as I can tie that name to my Stan Kaplan it should be legitimate. I am glad to see one of Myogauge's users chiming in above, thanks Dr.Fitness. It is a legitimate technology that is becoming widely accepted in health clubs nationwide. My article involves two issues. Explaining the Myogauge isometric technology and giving it's inventor Stan Kaplan the credit he deserves for this and his other prior inventions. Csbruggers (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a link to a history of PR Wire articles from Unifast Industries, Kaplan's original company. Here is the link: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-6162450.html. All the releases discuss product and have his name as the contact since he was the President of this company. This should count as some sort of evidence that he was heavily involved with the manufacture of construction components. Csbruggers (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links to the patents associated with his inventions: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=SKEtAAAAEBAJ&dq=Stanley+Kaplan http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=8hs1AAAAEBAJ&dq=Stanley+Kaplan http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=BdRLAAAAEBAJ&dq=Stanley+Kaplan These patents go back to 1962. Csbruggers (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Myogauge vs Stanley Kaplan

Your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myogauge Corp. are arguing an essentially invalid point. Whether or not Stanley Kaplan is notable is not the issue of that discussion. That discussion is focused on whether Myogauge Corp. is notable. If you believe that Kaplan is notable, you should start a separate article on him. But you should restrict your comments a the present AFD to information about Myogauge itself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fine, I am happy to change the article to one about Stanley instead of directly about Myogauge. Myogauge should be mentioned in an article about him, but his vast portfolio of prior art and inventions are what I am mainly interested in seeing him get credit for. I don't have time do to it right now, but I will copy the article and rework it into an article about him later today. Csbruggers (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest (as a matter of fact, I have already suggested) that you create the article in your own user space first. The links you have provided do no indicate that Kaplan is any more notable than Myogauge. When you have an article you think is ready, contact another editor to review it. (I'll volunteer of no one else does.) Let the independent editor evaluate what you've written before you move it to the article space to make sure the article contains the necessary information to establish Kaplan's notability.

Please don't take this the wrong way. Kaplan may well be a very admirable person, but notability is different that admirability. Unless you can provide citations to reliable sources that have covered Kaplan's life and accomplishments, any article you write about him will likely be deleted. As has been pointed out to you by others, the coverage does not have to be from online sources. Any published source is valid, as long as you can provide sufficient information for another editor to find that source and verify the information. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan, I understand what you are saying, but Stanley Kaplan is plenty notable, even if Myogauge is not as of yet. Please see my examples below under Anchor Bolt. I provide examples where his original patents are still being manufactured to this day, and are still the state of the art. Matter of fact, he is still designing new bolts because no one has ever come along who can do it better than he can. Please see the example of that below as well. Every design in the books and every improvement on those designs is his. I also copied my Myogauge article to a user article about Stan. Csbruggers (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

anchor bolt

I would like to see more about the history of anchor bolt design. If you know of any books or magazine articles on this topic, those would be excellent Wikipedia:reliable sources that would be useful in the anchor bolt article. (Perhaps you could ask Kaplan if he knows a few titles of such books off the top of his head, or perhaps has saved clippings from such articles).

A person's name on a patent is not quite enough Wikipedia:notability to support creating an entire Wikipedia article about that person. However, a person's name on a patent is usually adequate reference for giving that person credit as an inventor on a Wikipedia article about the thing that person invented (WP:NNC).

What convinced Kaplan that previous construction techniques ought to be improved upon?

If he read something about how many people wished they had anchor bolts, that written document would be a useful reference.
If he heard of some catastrophe that better anchor bolts could have prevented, there is a chance that something has been written about that catastrophe that might be a useful reference.
Has Kaplan ever written a book or magazine article about anchor bolts?

--DavidCary (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David. I like you way better than anyone else who's chimed in so far. You are giving me constructive guidance. Most of the people I've encountered during this process take a very hostile tone and don't have much patience for exploration and learning curve of a newcomer. I also find an air of narrow mindedness with people like the guy above, who seem to suggest his idea of what is interesting and important history is the only stuff worth reporting. I am very receptive to your suggestions. I am far more interested in seeing Stanley get credit for his vast contributions than Myogauge having its own article at this stage. Myogauge will be a household name soon, then there will be no question. The fact of the matter is, Stan was really the first one to design most of these things. He designed them based on his own need. There was nothing like these bolts before he came around. He was originally contracted to install railings throughout the tunnels outside of Washington DC in the 1950s. He realized there was nothing available on the market that would safely anchor a metal railing to the concrete floor, that would withstand the abuse and vibrations within the tunnel. There were probably many articles written over the years about him and his products, particularly in trade magazines. If you spoke to someone who's been in the hardware business for a while they would definitely know Unifast Industries, Stanley's original company. He not only designed all the products that are currently on the market, but he ran a company for 30 years that manufactured everything as well. And he's in the process of designing something brand new that improves upon all his existing designs, The Wedge King. I will speak to Stan and find out if he's hung onto any articles or third party coverage. How about hard copies of Unifast annual reports from the 70s and 80s that bear his name? Would those along with the patents prove that he basically created the industry? Csbruggers (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a reason why this very common product we have all used in our homes is called the Kap Toggle: http://libertyfastener.thomasnet.com/viewitems/toggle-bolts-wings/kap-toggle-hollow-wall-anchors. Here is the link to the patent for that very device that Stanley originally designed (See Drawings): http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=W_0qAAAAEBAJ&dq=stanley+kaplan+toggle+bolt It was so simple yet so effective that since the patent is not public domain, it is manufactured all over the world by various companies. Csbruggers (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example: http://www.concretefasteners.com/anchors-fasteners/thunderstud-wedge/pricing.aspx?gclid=CMHs3YKgtaUCFYSK4AodhxANYA. This product designed by Kaplan is still the state of the art after over 40 years: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=BdRLAAAAEBAJ&dq=stanley+kaplan+collar+anchor. There may not be tons of articles written, and I don't think he ever wrote a book, but there is no question that he basically established an industry and stocked it with so many incredibly important products, that after almost 50 years his designs remain the standard. Csbruggers (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a link to his most recent patent applied for just this year! http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=j07YAAAAEBAJ&dq=stanley+kaplan+collar+anchor. He's still innovating at the age of 82. Csbruggers (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David, here is a link to the user article I started for Stan. Please tell me what you think. I added links to his patents to the reference sections. I will work on finding more third party coverage to include, but in my mind it is quite clear that he is the father of this industry, and he deserves recognition. It may not be a glitsy business with tons of articles and outward appreciation for it's pioneers, but we all rely on his inventions on a daily basis whether we realize it or not. Any building built after 1965 in the US contains hundreds if not thousands of fasteners that he introduced to the mainstream. Csbruggers (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Article: Stanley Kaplan (Entrepreneur)

To everyone involved in this conversation, I am now working on a User article entitled Stanley Kaplan (Entrepreneur). So far as references, I am providing patent links with Stan's name on them dating back to 1962, and links to press releases dating back to Unifast Industries and American Body Armor, which should prove that Stanley all but created the business of anchor bolts, wedge anchors, expansion anchors, toggle anchors, etc, and also contributed heavily to the establishment of reliable body armor used extensively by the US Government.

Please read my talk page for longer explanations of Stan's involvement in these sciences and what prompted him to innovate the way he did. He also has a patent on record just filed for in 2010 which proves that he is continuing to innovate even at the age of 82. I spoke to Stan today. We demonstrated Myogauge for a large multi-state health and fitness organization based in New York who loved it. He is going to spend a little time writing a short autobiography, a history of Unifast Industries, and a history leading up to the creation of American Body Armor, and also the details of the founding of Myogauge. My goal is to have a section for each of these businesses as well as a personal history of Stan.

Feel free to check in on my article as it develops and give me feedback in the talk section as I go. Stanley Kaplan deserves recognition for his 60 year career as an innovator and inventor and I intend to make sure that happens. Thanks for all your help and feedback as I try to learn how to write for Wikipedia. I am an avid reader and now I plan to be an avid contributor. I see Wikipedia as one of the most important record keeping projects on earth. I understand and appreciate all the rules. Csbruggers (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that you can get frustrated with the Wikipedia process. But the process and guidelines are here because the users of the encyclopedia (who are also its editors and administrators) have decided through a process of consensus that this is the encyclopedia they want. I hope you can work your way through the various guidelines and learn what Wikipedia is looking for in terms of new articles. Specifically, you mention above that "Kaplan deserves recognition for his 60 year career as an innovator and I intend to make sure that happens". To be sure, Kaplan may well be deserving of recognition, but Wikipedia is not the way to achieve it. Per the notability guidelines, a person should already have gained the recognition before the Wikipedia article is written, so that the published sources that provide that recognition can be used as sources to verify the content of the article. I would suggest that, since you think so highly of Mr Kaplan, you might want to try writing a profile of him and submitting it to one of the many trade magazines that cover the various industries in which he has been involved. If that article gets published, it could then be used as a basis of verified facts to write his biography on Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well Dan, I can understand that you may not feel the same way about Stan as I do, and you may not care about anchor bolts or Myogauge either. From what I read on Wikipedia every day it is a place where importance is uncovered just as much as it is for existing importance to be displayed. I don't appreciate the implication that I am not a part of the consensus process for what should be presented here. I am a human being living on Earth who spends many hours scouring the depth of knowledge Wikipedia has to offer. I intend to show that Stanley has in fact achieved notoriety prior to Wikipedia, and that it was simply not fully appreciated. Anybody who has a portfolio of US patents for products that we all take for granted on a daily basis, someone who helped introduce effective, life-saving, personal body armor to the world, and who is continuing to innovate in multiple directions at the age of 82, is automatically noteworthy. We have articles about much more obscure inventors. I could find dozens if not thousands of examples of articles written about far less accomplished people than Stan Kaplan. If I did so, would you launch a campaign to stop them from being recognized as well? I believe that would only be fair... Csbruggers (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never intended to say that you are not part of the consensus process. You are perfectly welcome to take part in the discussion about what is and what is not notable. If you feel the guidelines are incorrect, make your voice heard. You could start a discussion a the Village Pump, or you could join a discussion about a specific guideline such as the noability guidelines for people. To do so, go to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) and make your point. However, until you can convince the community to change the guidelines, you must work within the established guidelines. These state that, in order to be included in Wikipedia, a person must have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. If you have access to such sources about Kaplan, that's great. Know that a person's patents are generally not considered a sign of notability. If that person's patents have demonstrably changed an industry (demonstrated by many citations by other patents to Kaplan's patents, or by technical journal write-ups, etc), than that would be significant. Surely, if Kaplan is as important as you say, someone should have taken note and written something about him. I hope you can find the sources and make this article work. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is what I am in the process of doing. There are more than a few mentions of Stanley Kaplan in subsequent patent applications. People attempted many times over the years to improve upon his designs and most were never granted coverage. Most of his original designs are still sold in the same form to this day, manufactured by third parties now that his patents have run their course. I am certain articles were written about him over the years. He ran a multimillion dollar international manufacturing company until 1988 that commercialized his patents. People my grandparents age made money investing in Unifast when it went public in the 70s. His original President of Manufacturing is Herb Henkel, the current CEO of Ingersol Rand. Getting hold of that stuff will take more work which I am fine with. Everything published over was prior to the internet so I will have to go through a lot of paper to come up with what I need. I have access to all of his written records dating back to the founding of Unifast and even prior. He was also a title holding body builder before entering the construction business holding the title of Mr. East Coast 1947, which have pictures of. Stan keeps meticulous hand written records at his office and he loves to file away letters and news clippings. I am fairly confident he will be able to give me some examples of independent coverage from over the years. Csbruggers (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Herb Henkel left Ingersoll Rand this year. But here is a link to his executive bio stating that he served as president of Unifast Industries. http://investing.businessweek.com/businessweek/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=280946&ticker=IR:US. "Mr. Henkel served as the President and Chief Operating Officer of Southern Fastening Systems and Unifast Industries, Inc."

John Belushi : Artie Lange

Artie sites Belushi as one of his main influences. People who are fans of these guys would all probably agree, Artie's life and career would seem to parallel Belushi's, had Belushi not overdosed and died at such a young age... people often compare Chris Farley with Belushi because he died, which is a worthy comparison, but fail to recognize the similarities between Belushi and Lange.

Where's Elvis This Week? & Jon Stewart

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plHfHCVb67E