Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David M. Kopp
=[[David M. Kopp]]=
:{{la|David M. Kopp}} – (
:({{findsources|David M. Kopp}})
Delete Though a published academic, my Google Web, Book and Scholar searches do not reveal significant WP:RS about Kopp to indicate he meets the notability requirements of WP:PROF. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Approximately seven papers by Kopp suggest he has not yet made a significant impact on his discipline, per WP:PROF, and the lack of secondary sources suggests he fails WP:BIO as well. Cnilep (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. One publication with 0 citations: h-index of 0 (Author=(kopp d*) Refined by: Institutions=(BARRY UNIV) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI). Most of the article is a recitation of his schooling, followed by a final sentence stating that he is Shaquille O'Neal's advisor – which is irrelevant to his own notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC).
- Clear Delete. GS gives cites of 3 and 1. That's all. Fails WP:Prof. Notability is not inherited. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC).
- Delete. I got this deleted earlier by prod. Abductive (reasoning) 04:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: The subject of the article has provided (via OTRS {{ticket|2010040610073287}}) a couple links showing a large number of articles authored by him: [http://www.bizjournals.com/search/results.html?Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&Ntt=%22David+Kopp%22] and [http://www.bizjournals.com/search/results.html?Ntt=%22David%20M.%20Kopp%22&Ntk=All&Ntx=modematchallpartial]. I'm encouraging him to provide more sources which may show he meets WP:PROF, so we'll see if anything else comes to light. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I admit I don't know the impact factor of the journal Business First of Louisville, but I have my doubts that even with these 14 papers the subject rises to the standard discussed at WP:PROF. Cnilep (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2010 (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.