Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A. Kaiser


 * 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. JForget 00:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

David A. Kaiser

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Executive editor of a non-notable minor journal. Does not appear to meet criteria for WP:PROF. Serious CoI issues as subject is a heavily involved editor of this article and others within a walled garden related to his career. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I say go ahead with this because of the potential problems this could face unless someone else writes it also notability doesn't seem to exist either. 216.40.74.37 (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here is his CV. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Kaiser is listed as " senior editor" The ed-in-chief or equivalent of a notable journal is so clearly notable that merely being one is taken for proof of notability in WP:PROF. The journal is published by Taylor & Francis, a reputable but not outstanding publisher. However, although the Journal of Neurotherapy does make it as notable (It's been published since 1995, and is listed in Scopus and other selective indexing services, which are key criteria) , it would be unreasonable to consider   it a "major" journal.  As for Kaiser otherwise, most of his articles listed in Scopus are essentially short editorials   in the journal he edits. Of other papers. the citation count is 23, 16, 3 ,2, ... , which speaks for itself.    DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as this doesn't really seem to be a major journal in any sense, as DGG says, and as the subject doesn't really appear to meet any of the other criteria for WP:PROF. If anything, the CV posted above would seem to argue against it. (Setting aside the COI issues entirely, as the article appears to have been edited down to a reasonable tone). B figura  (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per observations by  DGG. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete I can't help but agree with all of the above. --Sidonuke (talk :: contribs) 06:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I also agree with DGG's careful reasoning. --Crusio (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - i agree with nom and dgg. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:04, 16 October 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.