Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. Kilpatrick (2nd nomination)

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. Wizardman 15:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Kilpatrick[edit]

(was an incomplete afd) Notability? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - user has not received significant news coverage, there are no reliable sources which indicate significance, and a look at the creator/significant contributor to the article indicates that this is a clear conflict of interest. Not notable. -Toon^{0 5} 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that a number of articles now apparently link here generally as an accompaniment to a citation or reference (sometimes as contributions from the same editor). Also, article may not live upto WP:BIO, and may well be WP:COI, but lets refrain from accusations of vanity, as it may be intrepreted as insulting.._-zro ^t_c 23:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see your point, and have rephrased. Apologies if my ill-thought comment offended! - Toon⁰⁵ 17:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Not found in Google search, no books found at Amazon (despite mention of four books in article). Also, given the number of links to offsite sales of the book there might be a case of WP:SPAM as well. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 15:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Greenfield Advisors, although that article has its own issues. This is a tough one for me, for while there is little to no significant coverage in the reliable sources that we commonly use, a proper Google search [1] shows a number of hits for the subject's article being cited by others, or him being asked to opine as an expert witness, or to give a newspaper quote I sort of feel that he probably is notable within his (admittedly narrow) field, but that it's not of a nature to generate a newspaper article. In the end, I just didn't see the independent sources for a biography. The suggested merge target is the subject's company, but it seems to me that while that article could stand a nice bit of clearup, it probably is notable, and a greatly reduced excerpt form this article could be merged there. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Gut-- The article includes significant claims that are unsourced, uncheckable (unless you can read Japanese) or poorly sourced. All references apart from greenfield pages are to incestuous organizations and their non-notable publications. Article claims Kilpatrick is a leading expert on brownfields -- a topic that's bound to have some industry or general coverage -- but the only reference is content sourced to a greenfield article. A search brings up no media references other than those he wrote. Flowanda | Talk 07:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A great set of comments, and clearly this bio needs to be updated with better references and linkages. Thanks for the input.

A quick review of this bio would note the following

-- the "Japanese" reference is indeed to a journal with a Japanese cover, but the text inside is English -- The null-finding from Amazon is obviously wrong, since one of the footnotes links to one of Kilpatrick's books on Amazon. Other footnotes link to other books (Lexis-Nexis, Environmental Law Center) -- A "google" on John Kilpatrick unfortunately picks up a lot of noise from other Kilpatricks who are equally notable. However, a google on John Kilpatrick real estate is illuminating, and picks up at least one other Amazon.com link, an interview with Kilpatrick on economistblog.com, a published paper on the social sciences research network, a link to a published piece in the Journal of Real Estate Research, and others.

It's clear that some of the links can be improved, and I'll be glad to do that.

Thesurveyor (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a discussion about giving you feedback to improve a "bio"; this is a deletion review. Claims are not supported by the references cited...they often just link to an article PDF or main page. The monograph links to a pdf brochure, which does quote Kilpatrick and includes him in the thanks, but doesn't support the statement that he was a speaker or that the brochure was produced in his honor. None of the links to his memberships -- recga.com, rotary club references mention him by name or indicate he is an officer or leader within the organization. The info about being invited to work for a Japanese appraisal association (which shows no notability other than related Wikpedia references) is not supported by the link to a PDF on the Greenfield website. A search around the Supercomputer claims brings up no mention of Kilpatrick as a significant participant...although I did find references to other founding members. There are no links to articles quoting him in the national publications mentioned, although his comments in Bloomberg and the IHT were really well documented here: United_States_housing_bubble#Identifying the housing bubble. Most of the honors and associations stated are not sourced and are to organizations that seem to have few other connections than with each other. There does not appear to be anything called any variation of a "Nationally Certified Appraisal Standards Instructor", and Kilpatrick is not mentioned on the appraisal foundation website or related to the course http://www.appraisalfoundation.org/s_appraisal/sec.asp?CID=77&DID=108. Flowanda | Talk 02:48, 18 July 2008 (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.