Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Romanovsky

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. It is clear that there is no consensus on whether he meets WP:PROF, originating from different expectations, and the article has been here for almost a month, so it is time to take a break--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Romanovsky

[edit]
Daniel Romanovsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this person does not seem notable per WP:ACADEMIC. It is not clear at which university he taught or currently teaches. Also, the books mentioned in footnotes 3–5 do not include anything written by a "Daniel Romanovsky". Actually, those three books each include a single reference to the book in footnote 2 (to which Romanovsky contributed a chapter). The only "source" even mentioning his name is a dodgy interview on an Angelfire website, apparently written up by his wife. bender235 (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google Scholar shows several articles cited by numerous others, and Google Books shows him quoted in quite a few books. This just needs someone to cull more information from these sources. Yoninah (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think having a handful of citations is enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC requirements. One of the articles listed on Google Scholar lists "Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism" as his affiliation, where he is listed as "Editorial and Abstracting Staff". I'm not sure that is enough. --bender235 (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What relevant notability standard? He has only got 15 cites on GS. Several hundred would be the norm for this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
It might be useful to look him up in Russian, where he did his early work. Yoninah (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GS covers Russian citations as well. They are just not there. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Neutral Keep Neutral I started this article since I was using some of his writings as a source for another article. I think he deserves an article (yes I do know that's not part of WP policy ;)) but understand that the sources I provided were not enough by the strict rules here. The one that gives the most information was an interview by an Israeli website. The others were his own articles published in books on the Holocaust and some mentions of his research in other books, all found by Google books. I did purchase one book from Amazon with his article on Belarus under the Germans based on interviews with eyewitnesses. Some of my references are no longer in the article and I did not make the claim that he is a professor -- which I don't think makes any difference one way or the other. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS Thanks to bender235 for notifying me of this AFD.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the original references to the article, which should help a little.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my vote to keep after more references were found. Delete still has a case however since the sources talked mainly about his work, not about he himself. However with everything, keep.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After some more consideration I withdrew my keep vote. My understanding of strict WP policy will not allow me to vote to keep without substantial secondary coverage.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The main GS citation contributor (123 citations) is a book by V Rudich...is this mistakenly included in Romanovsky's entry? Some of the other entries are by other authors, as well. Seems to be only a handful of citations to his own work. WoS shows consistent results: his 1999 paper in Holocaust and genocide studies has 6 citations. This is really far below even the borderline of a few hundred citations (where there's legitimate back-and-forth on PROF c1). Majority of refs are pamphlets and web pages. Agricola44 (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Did you also check out Google Books? It shows 325. I only looked at the first two pages but they all seem to be about him.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's very different from what I see regarding books. When I search the Romanovsky's full name within Google Books, I see around 30 citations, and under WorldCat I don't see any primary-authored books. It appears he's written chapters, but no books. Can you furnish link that shows >300 citations? Agricola44 (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I guess I don't understand how Google Books works. Here's a link to a search for his name: [1]. Most of them seem to be saying that his interviews of Holocaust eyewitnesses are important. I agree with you that he himself is not noted as an author. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?start=10&q=daniel+romanovsky+holocaust+research&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5[reply]
That analysis does show a few more than the one I looked at, but only around 50...The succeeding pages seem to contain "Dan" and "Romanovsky", but not "Dan Romanovsky". Agricola44 (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep The opening sentence could be changed to "Daniel Romanovsky is an Israeli historian and researcher who has contributed to works analysing the Holocaust.." I think we have enough sources to back that up. Irondome (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you found more than what are being discussed above? Agricola44 (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks Irondome. I changed the intro by your suggestion. To me 50 mentions of his contributions, many in books published by universities etc., should be enough to establish his notability as an historian and researcher.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
take a look at this I am coming up with considerable material. Irondome (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's part of what we've already been discussing. The statistics are pretty far below the conventional requirements for PROF c1. Agricola44 (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
However, we do appear to over-relying on Google Scholar "A caution about Google Scholar: Google Scholar works well for fields where all (or nearly all) respected venues have an online presence. Most papers written by a computer scientist will show up, but for less technologically up-to-date fields, it is dicey. For non-scientific subjects, it is especially dicey. Even the journal Science puts articles online only back to 1996. Many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles. For books, the coverage in Google Scholar is partly through Google Book Search, and is very strongly influenced by publisher's permissions and policies. Thus, the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability". Irondome (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly he has done significant research work, which is referred to above. I first came across him in the reference in the Stone book referred to. He is notable for his pioneering work on the consequences of the Holocaust in the USSR, which was noted in peer review publications and done in very difficult conditions before he left for Israel. The entry certainly needs to be filled out which I might try and do when I get back to my library next month.Joel Mc (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is on "keep" here and the fact that all the standard databases (WoS, GS, WorldCat, Google Books, etc), which we routinely use for academics' AfDs, show mediocre results is very telling. BTW: Science is indeed online all the way back to Volume 1, Number 1 (July 1880) on JSTOR. The salient question is whether there is anything else that would decide the matter conclusively. Agricola44 (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism has it's own article. Daniel Romanovsky has been involved as an abstractor in the Posen papers aspect of the project, which has been reliably cited as "Having a unique position in the world of scholarship" [[2]]. I think his [involvement] in this project confers notability. Irondome (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's listed as a "technical editor", among many others, on that volume. Would you kindly have a quick look at WP:PROF for the kinds things that would count toward notability? "Having a unique position in the world of scholarship" is a platitude that can be applied to almost any academic activity. Agricola44 (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
He is actually listed as an abstractor. He is or was working on a major academic endeavour. C1 of WP:PROF seems to be satisfied here. "There are other considerations that may be used as contributing factors (usually not sufficient individually) towards satisfying Criterion 1: significant academic awards and honors (see below); service on editorial boards of scholarly publications; publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals; publication of collected works; special conferences dedicated to honor academic achievements of a particular person; naming of academic awards or lecture series after a particular person; and others." I also note that the subject has given lectures under the auspices of Yad Vashem in various countries. The above quote is hardly a "platitude". I really would suggest we apply common sense here. This is becoming increasingly desperate stuff. Irondome (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's becoming more desperate. You're trying everything to see what sticks, for example invoking association with Yad Vashem is pleading WP:INHERITED. If an "abstractor" is a person who writes abstracts of other people's work (probably what your link saying he's a "technical editor" means), then that is likewise routine academic work. Agricola44 (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Have you actually read any of the links I have given above? Yad Vashem was merely an afterthought, as I would have expected that more than enough evidence has been deployed to justify a provisional keep, allowing for further work on the article. Irondome (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear by my comments that I have indeed been looking at the evidence/links you've offered. I will try to sum-up the evidence in a new thread and maybe you could add whatever you feel I've left out. Would that be good? Agricola44 (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • I appreciate the offer of your time and energy. However I have argued as well as I could for a provisional keep, being a relative newcomer to the stimulating area of the project that is AfD. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re, the burden of proof etc...I believe that in order to delete, you need a consensus and I would not go along with that: I have already indicated above why his work is notable. Joel Mc (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I remember you had some vague remarks about difficult working conditions and unspecified number of citations. Agricola44 (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a historian, I suggest that those who doubt that Romanovsky is a historian who has done significant research read "Soviet Jews under Nazi Occupation in Northeastern Belarus and Western Russia" and/or “The Soviet Person as a Bystander”. Joel Mc (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The level of citations he has are not enough for him to pass point 1 for academics. I have seen historians who have a single paper that has twice as many citations as his total body of work have their articles deleted. Romanovsky does not pass any notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Way too little demonstrated academic impact (such as citations, response-papers, etc) for WP:PROF#C1, and there seems to be nothing else. Clearly he exists and has published but that's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Romanovsky is a historian who has done significant research. I am not sure why there is all the discussion whether or not he meets “notability criteria for academics”. There are plenty of historians who are not notable academics and who do notable and significant research. When I came across his name in a scholarly article, I found it useful to be able to get more info about him in WP even if the WP article is a bit of a stub. (I noted that it would be interesting to dig a little and add more info when I have time) I guess that I don’t really understand the need to delete articles which have useful info unless they are libellous or are misinformative. Joel Mc (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closer: This is Joel Mc's second !vote. Yoninah (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Didn't mean to cast two votes, but rather to clarify my earlier comments. Joel Mc (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Joel Mc: so strike your second vote and just indent your responses to other editors' !votes. Yoninah (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- He appears to have done original work on an important, but this seems to consist of about three academic articles, which is not normally enough for us to keep. Nevertheless, his work seems to be much cited, which might just push him over the edge into keep. Note that the citation indices are not good on arts subjects, such as history. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much cited. Can you quantify that? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keep. On the basis of the google scholar results, the google books results, and the source provided by [[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman] above, it seems to me that this individual just about meets WP:PROF #!1: namely, having had a significant impact on their field. In this case, Romanovsky seems to have had a significant impact as a researcher of the holocaust; impact cannot be measured solely by the number of GS citations. Vanamonde (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The google scholar cites are tiny-far less than normally required for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was closed as "delete" but is relisted per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 3.  Sandstein  08:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repost: Since this has been reopened I am reposting my comment which I posted on the Holocaust Talk page after jujutacular had decided to delete.

"In commenting on Jujutacular’s puzzling decision (to me) to delete the Romanovsky piece, I said that I would drop the issue and move on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jujutacular#top But I am going back on that decision to support Thoughtmonkey and Poeticbent as they are reiterating the points I made on Jujutacular’s talk page. I might add that as a member of a society which makes its decisions by consensus, I do not recognise Jujutacular’s idea of consensus which overrides a majority of votes. Furthermore, maybe the notability guidelines have a role (but even here not the only role) in deciding to create an article, but as I have already said, I am uncomfortable deleting a referenced article which contains useful info. Heavens know that I have come across many a WP article which seems to me trivial, but I have never thought that they should be deleted. Joel Mc (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His work has been reported in serious secondary sources.Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (re prior Keep) -- With the recent work by Poeticbend and ThoughtMonkey, the article has been much improved. I’m not sure if “usefulness” is a criterion in AfD discussions, but there are articles that use the subject as a source. I’ve always found it helpful to be able to click on “author links” in bibliographies to learn more about the author. The article is non trivial and “useful”.
That aside, the subject had an interesting life as a Soviet dissident and made a contribution to Holocaust research. Each of these would have probably been insufficient to establish notability by itself, but taken together, I come to the conclusion that there’s enough notability to sustain an entry. This is also born out by secondary sources that cover the subject’s career and research. I thus reiterate my keep vote. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (re WP:DRV Keep). Meets WP:N, with now added WP:RS expansion. Poeticbent talk 00:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At most, Weak Keep (as above) -- His subject is certainly an important one, but his scholarly output seems to be three articles or chapters in collections of essays. That is hardly enough to make him a notable historian. However the importance of the subject takes it beyond the weak delete, that those comments would imply. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe it should be noted that, as a researcher, Romanovski was significantly disadvantaged; that is why his output is lower than what's expected of a historian. Studying Holocaust in the Soviet Union in the 1980s was not exactly prohibited, but it was definitely a career limiting move. Moving to a new country mid-career did not confer the same advantages as pursuing it uninterrupted. The research has has done is fairly unique -- the oral histories he collected are irreplaceable as the people he interview most likely have died by now. So on the balance of things, I believe that the article should be kept.
In addition, this source: Collaboration in Byelorussia during World War II by Leonid Rein, was not considered during the original AfD. It was brought up during deletion review, and has now been added to the article. Rein discusses Romanovski's views and incorporates it into his work. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article has now been discussed in AfD/DRV for an entire month and it is now very clear that the conventional notability guidelines (works that are widely cited, held, reviewed, etc) are not satisfied. Peterkingiron's observation is accurate: Romanovsky's scholarly corpus consists of a small number articles and chapters in collections, none of which have shown significant impact. His output is indistinguishable from the "average professor" in his field. This would seem to explain why the relisting simply continues to push earlier canards: web pages and PDF pamphlets have been added and are now referred to as WP:RS, his work EXISTS (Kitfoxxethe), and the strained pleading from K.e.coffman that asserts special consideration because Romanovsky's work was suppressed under the Soviet system. (K.e.coffman concedes that Romanovsky's "output is lower than what's expected of a historian", but does not seem to recognize the contradiction in his/her position posed by the fact that Romanovsky emigrated to Israel in the 80's and has been a "free scholar" there for almost 30 years.) If this article is ultimately kept, it will represent a significant low-end outlier of WP historian bios. Agricola44 (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Reply. Yes, I think we've discussed all this already. The Google Books page and individual works you've quoted each represent a single citation to his work...there are around 40 of these by my count of the GB link you furnished (some GB entries do not seem to list his name). At any rate, I absolutely agree that his works are "discussed", but must emphasize that they are simply not discussed at a level that is commensurate with long-established notability guidelines. Moreover, these low numbers are not explained by the "suppresion" that you've claimed. Rather, Romanovsky's corpus of work is simply average in this sense (which is not to say that it isn't interesting, or lacks any other subjective quality that one might consider). Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I think that the academic conclusions he reached are interesting, and especially combined with the fact that other Soviet historians shied away from such conclusions, it is worth having this information. My reason is not so much policy based, but bending the rules a bit for a worthy case is also part of Wikipedia policy. Debresser (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per most of the above, and notably we have another case of "googleism," and holding liberal arts scholars to the identical (and inappropriate) standard for scientists... peer review isn't the only indicia of notability, and this individual has multiple other reasons for notability beyond NPROF. Montanabw(talk) 07:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but that comment misrepresents the above discussion. We have examined him in the context of being a historian, e.g. His output is indistinguishable from the "average professor" in his field. Most areas of science bios carry much higher notability requirements. We have wagon loads of WP historian bios and, if you start looking through some of them, like Will Durant, you'll find more objective examples of what qualifies as a bio. Even folks whom the mainstream historian community considers to be cranks, like Howard Zinn, have articles here because their works are discussed/critiqued, i.e. noted by others. You assert that Romanovsky has "multiple other reasons for notability": what are they? In the end, it seems like the "keeps" are again hoping for a simply tally-based evaluation of this case, because policy-based reasons for keeping this article are simply not there. Agricola44 (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • There is also WP:BASIC, where an individual who meets GNG does not have to meet a specialty SNG. Here, he has multiple sources of notability, WP:PROF alone is not the sole criterion. The political dissident angle is also significant. Montanabw(talk) 06:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I started the article, as I explained above, but I don't have any connection to Mr. Romanovsky. Just in case that was the issue.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep adding a couple of sources to the article now: an old news article describing his pre-immigration career, and a scholarly article mentioning him in a list of "leading scholars" in his field.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of the merits of his argument, he does not meet WP:PROF./The standards for academic notability are those applied in the academic field, and Historians normally become notable by publishing books, not journal articles. He has not published a single one. He has published 3 journal articles. They do not lead to recognition as an influential historian. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 26 August 2016 (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/Daniel_Romanovsky&oldid=1089515619"