Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard V. Kahn


 * 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. TigerShark (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Richard V. Kahn

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article clearly a self-promotional effort undertaken by the subject himself. Just a regular college faculty member using Wikipedia to make themselves seem very important. Laval (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. So far from satisfying WP:PROF that it is not even funny. That photo even looks like he snapped it of himself. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's one for DYK: "Did you know... that photo rights reside with the person that TAKES a picture not the person IN a picture and that Wikipedia's photo rights volunteers have been known to reject submitted portrait photos on those exact grounds?"


 * Trim. I am the user who marked this article as an autobiography (though wasn't signed in at the time). Though there might be a temptation to delete the article as a "punishment" for the blatant self-promotion involved, it seems like he might satisfy PROF by being the editor of a journal. There may be other evidence of notability that is lost in the enormous text that he has written. I get the impression that he has put his name (and links to his page) into a bunch of other pages here, so I assume anybody deleting his page would have to also clean those up. I'm not very active here, but to me it seems like the easiest solution would be to cut out the bulk of the article and leave something short that only covers the notable elements. --RadioElectric (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment That journal (apart from being moribund - last issue published in 2009) is of very doubtful notability itself and certainly not a "major well-established academic journal" as mentioned in WP:PROF#8. The fact that he has seeded links here and there is no reason to keep or delete. If deleted, those links will just have to be cleaned up. I have already looked at some and removed where the inclusion seemd out of proportion. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I need to get to work on a piece just now, but glancing at this article I suggest that the probable inclusion hook deals with the subject's political activism rather than status as a professor. That would be my initial take, anyway. I'm not sure that sources can be mustered in this respect, nor do I have time to look just now, I just offer the advice for the time being that running this bio through the "Professor" guidelines may mean a rejection, but seeking other sourcing may meet GNG. My two cents. The piece does need to be edited with a chainsaw, for sure. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:COI is not a reason for deletion, by itself. Still, could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. The subject’s h-index is 2, based on a GS search. The Green Theory & Praxis journal currently has an average of 0.86 citations per article; way too low at the moment to qualify the subject under WP:PROF criterion #8 (editor-in-chief of established journal).--Eric Yurken (talk) 22:01, 11 December 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.