Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Fischel

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 keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Fischel[edit]

[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)

As far as I can tell, the subject does not pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:BASIC in any way. There have been a small number of reviews of his work, yes, but the individual himself doesn't seem to be particularly notable, significantly covered, or have made a great impact in his discipline of Holocaust studies.

This was originally proposed for deletion but an editor removed that tag under WP:AUTHOR, but I don't see how Fischel would pass there either - WP:AUTHOR is for authors who have been influential or made an impact in some way, but he hasn't made an impact as an author either as far as I can tell. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to disagree. I am not an expert on holocaust studies, but it seems to me that this is an academic who has published a solid body of work that has been taken seriously by his peers, and which is still available, despite his career taking place mostly before the internet era. To me he's at least a weak keep. It is far too easy to expunge pre-internet academics and authors by expecting post-internet levels of modern-style coverage. Elemimele (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Judaism, Delaware, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (probably) I admit I am uncertain at how the notability criteria for academics works, but besides NACADEMIC Fischel appears to pass WP:GNG, see for example a Sunday News feature (p2), plus one from LNP Lancaster (p2), and then lesser coverage from the Intelligencer Journal (2), Sunday News (2 3), LNP Lancaster and the Lancaster New Era. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I wrote when I unprodded this in early 2022 and added all of those book reviews, he passes WP:AUTHOR. Each one of them is also in-depth coverage of Fischel's work, providing multiple reliable independent sources that also pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable per WP:AUTHOR. --Mvqr (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- An academic who is author or editor of a number of book on the holocaust is likely to be notable. I am strengthened in this by his being head of department in a university. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources mentioned above. Geschichte (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily satisifies WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reviews show notability. For verifiable facts we also have his Contemporary Authors entry[1] and this[2] newspaper article.Jahaza (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2023 (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.