Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Fulda

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 08:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Fulda

[edit]

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

Andreas Fulda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Potentially notable, but fails WP:NPROF. Possibly meets WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creepTalk 03:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I support deletion per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources about him. I would be open to supporting retention if editors determine that Andreas Fulda, an Associate Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, at the University of Nottingham (profile from the university), passes WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF.

    I found two book reviews for books the subject authored or edited:

    1. Chiu, Adrian; Chung, Ming-Lun (2021-07-09). "Andreas Fulda, The Struggle for Democracy in Mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong: Sharp Power and Its Discontents". International Journal of Taiwan Studies. 4 (2). Brill Publishers: 390–392. doi:10.1163/24688800-20211196. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      This is a book review of a book Andreas Fulda wrote. The two-page PDF preview shows that there is in-depth analysis of Fulda's book. However, the preview does not show biographical coverage about Fulda himself.

    2. Shang, Xiaoyuan (January 2017). "Civil Society Contributions to Policy Innovation in the PR China, edited by Andreas Fulda. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. xv+311 pp. £75.00 (cloth)". The China Journal. 77. University of Chicago Press. doi:10.1086/689232. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      This is a book review of a book Andreas Fulda edited. Aside from the article title, his name is not mentioned in the book review.

    I found that Andreas Fulder is quoted a lot in the media. However, there is not significant coverage about him in these sources.

    Cunard (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I think Cunard may have misunderstood the usefulness of reviews and their relationship to WP:NAUTHOR? Reviews of an author's work do not need to contain biographical coverage - indeed, it would be very strange for an academic review to do so. However, it is also strange that an academic this frequently quoted in news media, etc, only has a handful of reviews for any of his three books. I'm the one who added the reviews to the article; when I first saw it, I was expecting to find a clear NAUTHOR pass since there were three books there, but they're pretty under-reviewed, and one of them isn't a monograph. I held off on voting either way at first because this looks very borderline. But on reflection, I don't think there is any clear purpose in deletion here: this is a borderline case that will almost certainly become more notable as time goes on, and the article is short but not in bad shape. I don't see a hugely compelling argument in either direction, really. -- asilvering (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 1st one. Yip, possibly a paid review or at the very a least conflict of interest. I think it probably makes it suspect at the very least and unreliable. scope_creepTalk 09:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm still lost. I only see reviews footnoted for the three books. It would be extremely unusual for someone to write a review for an article in any case. But I'm also laugh-sobbing at the idea that academics get paid to write reviews for books (books that you also, typically, do not get paid for writing). -- asilvering (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is too low a bar by any measure to satisfy WP:NPROF and GScholar isn't used for WP:SIGCOV or WP:NAUTHOR. A simple measure on GScholar to determine if he was notable, if he had more than five papers with more than 100 citations for NPROF. The only measure that counts here is the book reviews. NAUTHOR requires independent book reviews. There is one that is idependent, one is bit dodgy, and likely unreliable. If another review turned up, then it would be good start for notability, but it has not been found yet. I don't think it will. It seems to be be below borderline. scope_creepTalk 11:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep Can you please link the exact review you're talking about for me, since I'm still at sea here? I think this might be a misunderstanding of how academic publishing works - editorial boards of journals are not terribly beholden to the publisher, and indeed academics don't often think of who the publisher even is for journals, at least in the humanities. (You do care when it comes to a book... usually. But as someone working for an academic press, I've been told (reasonably politely) to go to hell by an ed board before. It's the board and the peer reviewers who decide what gets published, much much more than the publisher.) But you may indeed be correct and be seeing something I've overlooked, in which case we should probably pull the review link entirely. -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 1st above. Both the book and review have been published, by the same publisher. It is not independent. scope_creepTalk 18:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean in @Cunard's post? That's not the case. The review is in a Brill journal, and the book is published by Routledge. -- asilvering (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are appearing on the same, not published by. So far they're is only one reliable reference. scope_creepTalk 09:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I think it's still a bit WP:TOOSOON. The best case appears to be through WP:NAUTHOR, as is unsurprising in what I believe to be a "book field". I see two solid reviews of authored works, one of an edited volume, and one review/interview on the New Books Network. I think that New Books Network is probably somewhat reliable (with usual caveats about interviews), but I don't think it's the kind of review discussed by WP:NAUTHOR; edited volumes are different from authored works. I'd like to see at least one more solid review of an authored work. Mentions in context of his work seem a little short of WP:GNG. I'm not seeing WP:NPROF, as others have discussed. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bosley John Bosley: They are articles not profiles. Don't use the word profiles, if you wish to remain on Wikipedia. Saying such a thing as that, makes me think that you undeclared paid editor. scope_creepTalk 13:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...er...WP:AGF...check my edits dude - who would be paying me?...and for what? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The book reviews are enough for at least a weak case for WP:AUTHOR, and the Radio Free Asia "Concerns Grow" source has a six-paragraph section about him, which I think rises to the level of nontrivial coverage. More coverage is hard to find but in part that's because it's obscured by the many publications that are by him rather than about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: further discussion of whether there's a confict between the journal and the book's publishers, which does not appear to have been addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I find the focus of the deletionists here on independence of publishers and the reiteration of this focus in the relisting comment by User:Star Mississippi to be completely baffling. The article does not list any reviews that match the imagined descriptions of the deletionists here: there are no reviews of articles, and there are no reviews that have the same publisher as the thing they review. The article in its current state (unchanged since Feb.9) lists four book reviews: [17] published by New Books Network about a 264-Routledge book, [18] published by Brill about the same Routledge book, [19] published by U. Chicago Press about a 311-page Palgrave Macmillan book (edited), and [20] published by the Arnold Bergstraesser Institute about a 277-page Springer book. There is not even an apparent conflict of interest. In all four cases the publisher of the review and the publisher of the book are unrelated, and the page counts make it clear that the reviewed items are books and not mere articles. When asked for clarification on which review was meant, Onel only produced more unclearness: "Yip" (a name not used in any of these reviews), and "the first one" (of what ordering?) We cannot base a deletion discussion on made-up facts that do not match anything in the article or the rest of the world. Opinions based on these untruths should be discounted, just as we normally discount deletion opinions that are disconnected from our notability guidelines. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking purely to my statement, it didn't look like @Scope creep's query was answered. And note, NeverTry is a blocked editor so that conversation definitely needs input from established editors and Bosley's keep is not at all policy related. If I had closed, it might have been n/c, but I didn't feel confident in that standing, hence the relist. No harm in more time. Star Mississippi 14:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: I'm wasn't sure if he is notable or not, hence the Afd rationale above. I think with four genuine reviews, the subject is likely notable. I tend to trust David Eppstein as he knows what he is talking about, in this instance. I originally looked at them and wasn't sure. Regarding the comment above, I don't think there was any attempt to make up facts, as that is the whole point of Afd, is to ferret them out and make them visible so they can discussed. Lastly Yip means Yes in British English. I thought originally the first review that was coied, but even with three others it would be more than enough. scope_creepTalk 14:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh absolutely. My concern was whether your question was answered. I haven't reviewed the sources as this is a complicated (in a good sense) discussion and I haven't had time to dive. If folks happy with this closing, happy to revert my relist. Star Mississippi 15:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi for what it's worth, I think your no-consensus instinct is sensible. There are more keep votes than delete votes, and once you cut through the confusion about the publishers the delete votes are pretty weak, but the keep votes don't have really strong arguments either, and it's been a pretty confusing AfD, as you say. -- asilvering (talk) 20:50, 23 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andreas_Fulda&oldid=1075354563"