Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Kohn

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. Tim Vickers (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Kohn[edit]

Non-notable. I've followed this article for some time, hoping we can make something of it, but I've come to the conclusion that it's not possible. Subject is a businessman who appears to have bought into other fields. As a businessman he lacks notability, as a scientist he is unpublished and as a musician he is an amateur. If anyone can prove me wrong, show he is notable and make the article viable (as opposed to the liability that it is now) I'll be delighted - otherwise it should go. Klein zach 07:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society is not the same as Fellow of the Royal Society. LK (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Honorary Fellow, if anything, seems more notable than just Fellow: only 1 HF can be nominated each year and several years none has been nominated. Since the program started in 2000 (before that, such candidates became Fellow under a different nomination mechanism), only 5 Honorary Fellows have been elected. Although slightly less exclusive, Honorary Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences also appears to be very notable. Several other honors are listed on his (http://www.ralphkohn.com/ own website] and I have added those for which I could find independent sources to the article. --Crusio (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Honorary fellow of the Royal Society and the Academy of Medical Sciences, the top UK bodies for science and medicine respectively. I'm not sure why Kleinzach feels he's more able to judge his contributions than the eminent scientists/medics who make up their panels. Honorary fellowship of the Royal Society in particular requires six current FRSs to nominate and a 2/3 majority of the vote.[1] The Queen's Award for Export is a major UK business award, made on the advice of the UK Prime Minister. He might also be notable as a baritone; according to BBC Radio 4, he has 12 CDs and has appeared at major venues including the Wigmore Hall, Queen Elizabeth Hall and the Royal Albert Hall.[2] This independent reference could be used to expand the biographical material. (For non-Brits, BBC Radio 4 is the major factual radio station in the UK, and its official website material is validated.) Espresso Addict (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the Queen's giving him awards because she thinks he's notable, who am I, as her subject, to argue? (Yes, a different Queen, but the same person. Let's not quibble.) Wily D 13:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- Queen's Awards for Enterprise "are made on the advice of the Prime Minister after examination of applications by an Advisory Committee composed of leading individuals from industry, commerce, trade unions and government." --Jmundo (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:BIO on the basis of Queen's Awards for Enterprise and being an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society, both highly prestigious honors. As noted above, the requirements for being an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society are very stringent, and even more selective than being a regular FRS, according to FRS' procedures[3]. There are also examples of in-depth and specific coverage of him in newsmedia, e.g. [4],[5][6]. Nsk92 (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close per WP:SNOW MikeHobday (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is Wikipedia not Britipedia. Let's have some more opinions - and hopefully an improvement to the article, which is what this is all about. --Klein zach 23:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be Britipedia, but the snow is becoming an avalanche. --Crusio (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but there's been little improvement in the article itself. Why is that? Can you tell me? --Klein zach 01:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors don't want to potentially waste their editing time on articles under threat of deletion? The nominator of the article doesn't feel able to incorporate the sources others have provided? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And AfD is about establishing notability or a lack thereof, not for article improvement. I think notablity has been shown conclusively, so why continue with this AfD? --Crusio (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Crusio and Espresso Addict. Meets WP:PROF criterion #3 (elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association; fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor), and probably other criteria as well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep' Obviously notable as shown by almost everyone. Edward321 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from all of the reasons above being a guest on Desert Island Discs is a very strong indicator of notability - it's not something that nobodies get to do. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 January 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.