Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ned Kock


 * 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. Elonka 16:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ned Kock

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems to fail Notability (academics). Article appears to be self written by a user here to promote his own work - see, , or most any of the other IPs in the Ned Kock article's edit history. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  01:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep.I am no longer maintaining this article. Still, my suggestion is to keep. None of the citation sources are to self-publications; they are media outlets, including prestigious ones (e.g., New York Times), and refereed journals. A Google search for “ned kock” (with quotes) returned 47,300 hits. The two books now listed in the article are with prestigious publishers – Springer and Sage. Amazon lists 13 books authored by Ned Kock, one of which is an encyclopedia. Kock is the editor-in-chief of an established journal, and is the author of 66 refereed journal articles (plus a number of invited articles in journals, book chapters, and proceedings papers). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senortypant (talk • contribs) 13:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that this user has self identified as the article subject. The New York Times mention is trivial (a background quote in an article about email), not an article about Professor Kock. - MrOllie (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This self-identification point is a little off-topic, in my opinion, and incorrect. A picture can be owned by someone other than the subject of the picture. The point about the NY Times article is a valid one though, but that is not the only source - Senortypant —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC).


 * weak keep. A google news search shows some good sources. It doesn't seem to be much, mainly based on press releases, but significant coverage altogether. The possible WP:COI issues are not grounds for deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The references in the article show notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets academic/professor notability criterion #8 (editor-in-chief); established journal, broadly indexed, and carried full-text by ABI/INFORM. Eric Yurken (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2008 (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.