Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John W. Kercheval, III

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. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Kercheval, III

Contested prod, notability asserted, thus not a speedy candidate, but beyond the claim of notability, there are no sources to support said claim and no explaination as to why said claim might be valid. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as both the article and this edit indicates, (ignoring the personal attacks), there are references to "Who's Who in America" and I guess various newspapers but not detailed enough to be particularly verifiable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider Who's Who to be particularly reliable for establishing notability either... I've been contacted a few times by them, and my impression is that it is nothing more than a paid vanity advertisement. I did a google search, but couldn't find anything that said this guy single handedly created the financing aspects of the aerospace & defense business. Almost everything I found was blogs, wikiclones, facebook/linkln/myspace. IF reliable sources can be provided, then the article can be defended, but as is, the claim is more bravado than substance. I'll also point out that the article reads more like a CV than an Encyclopedic article.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails both WP:BIO and WP:PROF. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dubious claim for notability. No external reliable sources cited. LK (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the verified sources can be provided, this is clearly a keep as the individual is notable. that it needs improvement, is not a reason for deletion. if the facts are false or unverifiable, then you have a reason for deletion. --Buridan (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What verified sources? How is the individual notable beyond a *claim* of notability - a claim of notability would remove a prod, it's not a reason to keep an article at AFD. I like Balloonman find nothing but vanity pages - if you have reliable sources, please add them to the page and I'll be happy to change to a keep. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cameron, the *IF* in your statement is a huge conditional statement. *IF* we can provide proof that he is notable, then by default all of the deletes would switch, and I will happily withdraw the nom. (Heck, I even posted that on the IP's talk page. The problem is that I see nothing but vanity pages, this page reads a step up from a vanity page, and Who's Who is a vanity publication. *IF* the author can find a reliable source that says, Kercheval single handedly created the financing aspects of the aerospace & defense business, then of course he would be keepable per BIO/PROF. As is, the article merely makes an unsubstantiated claim (which is dubious to begin with).---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC) EDIT: When I do a search on his name and Aerospace, I get 9 hits (and that's more than if I used John W. Kercheval, III!) Many of those hits are WP or WP mirrors.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it possible that this is a hoax? According to the article he has an appointment at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business, but their website does not list him. Given the flaky references (Who's Who!) and overblown claims I am starting to think that this is not real. --Crusio (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No.[1]---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here is his vitae, unless of course it is a huge hoax: http://www.space-careers.com/agency/cvview_1932.html --Buridan (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pass neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Citation impact seems to be low. News coverage not particularly impressive.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To make matters worse, the Kercheval in the article you linked to above is James F Kercheval, NOT John W Kercheval III.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am in agreement with the nominator. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The appointment as an academic is secondary to his career, being the typical professorship of a prominent business executive after his business career. They do have two of his publications in the publications database, so he has some connection with Georgetown, but i too have been unable to verify it is as professor. It is very hard for use to document the significance of business careers like his. DGG (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there even any substantiation that he is a "prominent business executive"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.104.230 (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is enough stuff on the web for him (in non-reliable sources) that I think it is fairly safe to say that he is real an at least a moderately successful business man. But there is nothing to indicate that he is more successful/influencial than any of the thousands of other corporate execs around the country.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.