Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Clabough


 * 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   delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Casey Clabough

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a professor who does not seem to meet WP:PROF. The citations are from websites and journals that also seem to be non-notable. He is the editor of a very small literary journal, but it may not be notable either, and even if it is he cannot inherit notability from it. Separately, there are WP:COI concerns, as he has apparently assigned an assistant to edit this article (see here). Cmprince (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:PROF. I see no non-trivial coverage of him. Cheezburgerboy (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - for the reasons stated above. I have been particularly concerned about the amount of COI editing, which extends beyond the editor referred to by Cmprince. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no evidence from the existing references in the article or from Google Books, News or Scholar that this person would meet WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. (Can't help noticing this COI issue bears a striking similarity to the final item in WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-28/In the news.) --Qwfp (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Add to the above: GS h-index of 2. The fact that the article has some pretty obscure WP:OR (Clabough lives on and manages a farm) and that the creating acct has only edited this article and the one on James Dickey Review (for which Clabough is the editor) suggests this may be little more than a vanity page. Interestingly, there is another acct that has also only edited these 2 articles. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Rejoinder. Seems nom has already established that the second account is the subject's assistant. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Comment. I did get this info, but I'm not the nom on this. Had tried for CSD and it was declined. No big deal but just setting the record straight. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2011 (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.