Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Kohan

:{{la|Samuel Kohan}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samuel_Kohan Stats])

:({{Find sources|Samuel Kohan}})

This person does not seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Also the article seems more intent at pushing his business practice than at being a real bio. BenTels (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete My Google search indicates that this person simply isn't notable by Wikipedia's standards. I was unable to find any significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• The American Psychiatric Association published Samuel Kohan's book find it here: http://psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=62908 The American Psychiatric Association is a reliable source as a reference. As to notability of Samuel Kohan, this article by the Columbus Business Jouranal http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/print-edition/2011/11/04/independent-minded-cardiologists.html which specializes in reporting business related issues found Samuel Kohan noteworthy for a national audience, particularly cardiologists and hospitals. As to promoting a business, there is no business named to be promoted. Therefore, deletion can not be supported by the asserted issues. --Juristicweb (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I consider it unlikely that the Samuel Kohan who wrote one published article about the pharmacists' role in psychiatric hospitals in 1973 is the same Samuel Kohan who blogs about health care management and private ownership of cardiology practices in 2011 and 2012. I could be wrong, but I would want better sourcing connecting the two personas. The coverage in Columbus Business First contains no significant biographical coverage of this Samuel Kohan as a person, but merely quotes him on the main subject of the article - cardiology practices. The sources provided to date fail, in my view, to demonstrate that this person is notable by Wikipedia standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Further comment Kohan's entry on [http://practiceadministrators.com/SamuelKohan.php PracticeAdministrators.com] says he has "more than 17 years of practice management and health system experience in private physician and large medical group practices". I don't think that this person was writing articles for the American Psychiatric Association 39 years ago, and this old publication is not listed among his writings. I believe the most likely explanation is that this old article was written by someone else with the same name. Please refer to Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think Samuel Kohan wrote this Book: "Medical Practice Management Guidebook, by Samuel Kohan, July 2012, ISBN: 1478340339" find it here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008RDUHKK, as well as these articles on the healthcare management: Selecting and Implementing EHR/EMR/Patient Scheduling System for a Medical Practice By Samuel Kohan, find it here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/115590526/Samuel-Kohan---Selecting-and-Implementing-EHREMRPatient-Scheduling-System-for-a-Medical-Practice-By-Samuel-Kohan; Medicare Payment find it here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/115612292/Samuel-Kohan---Medicare-Payment; Selecting and Implementing an IT/Phone System for a Medical Practice http://www.docstoc.com/docs/115590210/Samuel-Kohan---Selecting-and-Implementing-an-ITPhone-System-for-a-Medical-Practice; Guidance on Organizational Structuring and Staffing a Medical Office http://www.docstoc.com/docs/115589989/Samuel-Kohan---Guidance-on-Organizational-Structuring-and-Staffing-a-Medical-Office. Also the Columbus Business Journal's article referenced to Samuel Kohan as an expert in the healthcare field. I don't see why it needed to provide a biographical information of Samuel Kohan to be material. The point is that the business article independently recognizes Samuel Kohan as an expert on an issue of national importance, and that is material here.--Juristicweb (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• You are incorrect, Juristicweb. That article calls him a "consultant" but does not call him an "expert". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me that this bio satisfies the general notability guidelines. It has (1) “significant coverage”, “reliable”, “sources”, “Independent of the subject”. Specifically, a third party reporter, Carrie Ghose, from the Columbus Business First, verified Samuel Kohan by referring to him as “a Philadelphia-based consultant with Neva Inc” and quoted Samuel Kohan “I’m suspicious that these [hospital and cardiologists relations] will be successful marriages in the long run” in her article http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/print-edition/2011/11/04/independent-minded-cardiologists.html which is about the consequences of the Affordable Health Care law. Considering that a third party reliable news source, Columbus Business First, found Samuel Kohan to be an expert in the Affordable Health Care by naming him and quoting his prediction on the consequences of the law the bio is notable and should not be deleted. --Oceangreenn (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• This bio needs more information about this person and citations rather than deletion. He does not need to be popular or famous, but notable. He was noted by an independent reporter as a notable expert on healthcare.--BMWcomputer (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: My problem with the article as it stands right now (I'm writing this after the article has been edited to remove the semi-advertorial), is that I simply cannot tell whether Kohan is notable or not. Sure, he's been interviewed as a consultant to health care. But the thing is, consultants get interviewed all the time because journalists need another opinion for their article of the time and consultants are always available (guess what I used to do for a living...). And consultants write books about their subject from time to time as well. Based on what I can see right now and what I can pick up in basic searches, I cannot tell whether Kohan is a recognized expert in his field or just one consultant among many. That is not to say that I am absolutely correct -- if someone with a better view of the field knows him to be an expert, then so be it. But I don't see it right now. -- BenTels (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I see you point. There are tens of thousands of healthcare consultants, but how many really get named and quoted on business journals as consultants on important national debates? By the way, a consultant is an expert. (definition of consultant: "Experienced professional who provides expert knowledge" businessdictionary.com) It is not clear to me why we are dismissive or find the above referenced news source as insuffficient for notability purposes. How many news papers or online news reference is required to pass the threshold of notability? If this news website names this person as a consultant why can't we accept him as a consultant who has been noted and relied upon on a significant national debate/issue. It appears to me that you may want to see a famous or popular consultant which is not a requirement in here, but notability is. A person who writes a book and gives interviews to reporter(s) as an expert on a subject matter is notable. That is why they interviewed him not the others.--BMWcomputer (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: How many get quoted? Any who happen to be around when a reporter is looking for a quote? Or whichever one gets sent to do the interview when an editor makes a call to a hospital or the consulting firm and asks to talk to someone for a point of view in an upcoming article? It could very well be that the consultant in question is a noted expert, or it could be that he is just one of many who happen to know a bit about the industry -- consulting firms employ both. Also (but this is not really pertinent to this article specifically), don't overestimate consultants -- they can be industry experts, but also people who are just learning (consulting firms have pyramids as well; not every consultant is an actual expert, he can also be a junior). In any case, my point was that it is not immediately obvious to me that this consultant is particularly notable within his industry. And no, I don't agree that writing a book or being interviewed confers notability. WP:ACADEMIC sets a standard of having made a significant contribution to ones field -- I cannot tell whether or not he has. Perhaps he has, perhaps his book is considered a standard text in the field... or maybe not. I just don't know. As for being interviewed, sure, he was interviewed as a consultant in the field. But there are lots. Was he interviewed because he is an enormous expert in his field, or is he just the guy the interviewer happened to get in touch with? I don't know. Again, if someone with a better view of the field says he is notable, then that is perfectly fine with me. But right now I just cannot tell that he is. -- BenTels (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete The bizjournals reference is just an in-passing mention, with no useful info on Kohan. I searched the Web of Science for publications, using 1975 as the cutoff date (that still leaves in several articles that are from different persons names "kohan S"). Despite the probable overestimation, I find 33 papers that are cited a grand total of 353 times, none more than 50, with an h-index of 10. Does not meet WP:PROF, nor do I see how this satisfies WP:BIO or WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: The article meets the conditions of WP:BIO. I see it as a general bio that needs more citations for clarification and verification. I don't see it falling under WP:ACADEMIC. However, "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources".id. The subject of the article may not be in the Web of Science but that does not mean he is not notable in the world of ideas, and I am not sure if the reference to him in the news article was "trivial". Being an enormous expert can be helpful in notability, but not being enormous does not take away notability. As a doctoral journalism student I have a special interest in the Affordable Care Act and Kohan's prediction of its affects on cardiologists in the United States, as reported, makes him noteworthy.--BMWcomputer (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Regarding meeting the conditions of WP:BIO: Samuel Kohan is not the subject of the cited references and google at least does not provide immediately obvious references of which he is the subject. To the best of my knowledge he has not won any awards or honors, although (again) someone else may know better here. And it is, so far, not clear that he has made any historically enduring contribution to his field (once again, someone else might be able to provide better insight). In what way do you feel he meets the criteria set in WP:BIO?
  Regarding being notable despite not being on WoS and so on: you are correct, he may very well in point of actual fact be notable in his field. Not being well-known is not a criterion (lord knows for example Joachim Martin Falbe is not) nor is being mentioned on WoS. But for the purposes of Wikipedia, that notability must be evident from something. An argument of notability based on the fact that you just know he is notable is not sufficient. Think of it this way (as a journalism doctoral student): if someone you had never seen stopped you in the middle of the street and told you that Mitt Romney is ineligible for the presidency because, having been born on Mars, he is not a natural-born citizen, would you run with that story or would you want to have some strong supporting sources first? The same idea applies here. However, there may be a simple way to solve this: you are a journalism doctoral student with an interest in the subject -- you sound exactly like the kind of person with the wherewithal and the knowledge of the field required to come up with better sources regarding Samuel Kohan. -- BenTels (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with your premise as you put it. I didn’t suggest the article is whole. I suggested additional verifications and citations should be considered instead of deletion. As a journalist I tend to respect and give weigh to another journalist’s report rather than relying on search engines. Here a fellow journalist for whatever reason selected this individual for her article. I don’t see her as anyone with a crazy idea approaching me on the street about Mitt Romney, as you described.--BMWcomputer (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Ehhh... Yeah... Just to make sure we don't have another misunderstanding brewing here... I wasn't trying to say that this journalist is bouncing off the walls. The point I was trying to make is that, for the purposes of Wikipedia, everybody has to be able to see what notability is based on. This journalist may have seen something in Kohan, but right now the community cannot see it. -- BenTels (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The "book" he has written appears to be a self-published E-book available for the Kindle or by on-demand printing through LuLu. There are no signs of independent editorial control or fact-checking, and I have been unable to find any published reviews of the book in reliable, independent sources. The book and the blog posts he's written are worthless for establishing notability on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Deletion G11, A7 (No indication of importance)--BMWcomputer (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Okay... That was unexpected... -- BenTels (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:GNG. WP:PROF also looks out of reach. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Some random comments of a non-notable person is all what this article contains. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete He does not meet WP:ACADEMIC (for lack of significant impact on a field as demonstrated by sources) or WP:BIO (for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources). Google News Archive found literally nothing; the article provides a single, one-sentence quote from him in the Columbus Business Journal. (The article made it appear to be two references, but they are one and the same, and I consolidated them.) He also does not meet WP:AUTHOR; he has written a single book which was self-published last month.[http://www.amazon.com/Medical-Practice-Management-Guidebook-Volume/dp/1478340339/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1344707990&sr=8-2&keywords=samuel+kohan] The article (and the internet itself) is almost completely lacking in biographical detail, but I gather that he is not a physician (although the article leaves one with the impression that he is a cardiologist); he is a medical practice administrator [http://www.practiceadministrators.com/SamuelKohan.php] with a consulting practice. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

:{{#if:yes|Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)|{{error|This template must be substituted!}}}}

: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.