Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Kevin Hill

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. ✗plicit 01:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R. Kevin Hill

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Earlier today I revision deleted a violation of our biographies of living persons policy on this article that was added just hours after it was accepted from draft. I was subsequently contacted by the subject, who requested deletion of the article. Even if he had not requested it, deletion is justified as he hardly seems notable. The only independent sources are reviews of a couple of his books – mostly just one book about Nietzsche and Kant, which probably owes the attention to these two very prominent philosophers rather than to its author. All the biographical content is bare bones career info from the websites of current and former employers. We have in the past deferred to deletion requests from marginally notable living people, and in this case I doubt it is even marginal. RL0919 (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RL0919 (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I passed it at AfC based on the multiple reviews for their books (after I searched for them) but it could have gone the other way. The fact that the main author of the article added something after it was accepted that needed Revdelling sits uncomfortably with me, which, combined with the subject's request make me agree with delete and suggest that it be Speedy if possible. Gusfriend (talk) 02:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wikipedia:NACADEMICS. Has one book that's cited but there is not a long publication history showing that they would pass WP:SNG. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching finds seven reviews of Nietzsche's Critiques (JSTOR 26342443, JSTOR 3700479, JSTOR 20717852, JSTOR 20130791, doi:10.1111/j.1468-0378.2006.00236.x, doi:10.1080/09608780410001676520, doi:10.1086/504627). I didn't find reviews for the other authored book. With only one book significantly reviewed, I would normally suggest a redirect to an article about the book, which could well be notable, rather than outright deletion. But in a case like this where it is already borderline (the number of reviews is good but for only one book), with BLP-attack content already attempted on the article and easily found online (note: new editors who link it here or post it here will find themselves blocked), and with what I can easily believe is a valid WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE from the subject, I think deletion is the right outcome. Wikipedia is not and should not be a host for someone's vendetta against someone else. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I previously declined its submission to AFC because it appeared to fail Wikipedia:NACADEMICS, and was subsequently surprised when it was passed. I can only speculate what the last edit was, but if it violates the WP:BLP policy around privacy, this would reinforce my delete vote. —Caorongjin 💬 07:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to pass WP:NACADEMICS, and even if it does, definitely a non-public figure, so I'm inclined to say if the subject is requesting deletion it's more than valid (see also WP:BIODEL). Beyond that, the user who created the AfC, User:LuizaSalome, states a conflict of interest on their user page and previously had a less ambiguous statement there—this feels suspiciously like someone who is WP:NOTHERE and is making this page for personal reasons such as spreading misinfo about the article subject. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 07:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be one book that is highly cited and multiply reviewed, but normally we require at least two. I often lean to keep in these cases, or at least rework to the notable book, but given the history and the content of the deleted edit, I'm satisfied that the motivation for creating this was as an attack page. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The relevant wiki-notability guidelines would be those for authors and academics, which tend to overlap in those fields of academia which focus on book publications. The rule-of-thumb in this situation would typically be to look for multiple books that have received multiple (formally published) reviews apiece. That standard is not met, and so there's really nothing to counterbalance the request to delete. Whatever the complaints or allegations against him, and whether or not they are merited, we can't be a platform for them. XOR'easter (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2022 (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.