Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Umland

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. (non-admin closure) Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 22:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Umland[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)

Fails WP:NPROF. scope_creep^Talk 11:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, and Germany. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is not really a great argument, but Umland is a relatively established scholar (even if he never worked at major institutions) and he is taken seriously by his peers, even if some of his positions are not uncontroversial. I think we have articles on far less relevant academics (although that might well be a case for deleting some more articles rather than for keeping this one). Ostalgia (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly meets NPROF. ~~Indeed, “we have a bunch of articles on non-notables so let’s delete this notable one” is not the best argument for deletion I’ve ever seen.~~ —Michael Z. 15:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Edited. —Michael Z. 17:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - How exactly does a person come to the conclusion that this was an argument for deletion? Ostalgia (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Honestly the facts at the end do seem relevant, but I don’t personally see how they form part of the nomination argument. Apologies if my partly tongue-in-cheek comment was off base. —Michael Z. 01:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps because they are not part of the nomination argument? I am not the nominator, I was merely replying to him with a brief comment as to why I believe Umland might be worth keeping, namely a) that in spite of not being a flashy name at a major institution he is well regarded by his peers, and b) that there are far less relevant people whose articles we do not object to (while conceding that this latter point could well be flipped around into "they have to go as well"). Ostalgia (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Oops, apologies, @Ostalgia. I misread and missed the actual nomination above. —Michael Z. 17:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Umland is cited by 3,519 sources catalogued in Google Scholar,[1] and by about 300 or more in each of the last four years, about 100 or more in each of the last 15 years.[2] He is author or co-author of 99 works on JSTOR.[3] Searching for his full name returns over 660 results in Google Books.[4] —Michael Z. 17:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  In Google News, searching for his name in the last year maxes out 100 results, and returns about 7 results in the last 7 days, about 30 in the last 30 days.[5] —Michael Z. 17:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Those GNews hits all seem to be articles written by him, so aren't of use for determining notability. SmartSE (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  You mean he’s a widely published author?
  
  WP:AUTHOR:
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors
  
  NPROF:
  7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
  
  —Michael Z. 04:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's easy to find a lot of pieces from Umland published in reliable sources, but is that enough? Or do we need pieces about Umland specifically? Cortador (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- A biography is based upon sources that are about the subject's life or about the subject's works. Uncle G (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NPROF #7, widely cited by his peers and media. de:Andreas Umland has some good sources. It is hard to believe we need to discuss this, given that he is already on thirteen languages of Wikipedia and all accepted him. AFD is not a cleanup. 2A05:87C7:9008:2C00:A839:6080:4248:D58B (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DINC is an essay, not a policy, it isn't undisputed. Janhrach (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - That deletion is not cleanup has been long-standing policy since the time when all cleanup was done via the Project:Cleanup page. Uncle G (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uncle G: may I ask, where is it written? We also have WP:TNT. Does this essay argue against current policy? (Of course, this doesn't apply to this article, as it isn't "irreparable".) Janhrach (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A discussion with a few !keep votes will do it. It looks like he is notable but I'll wait to see what other folk say. 13 Wikipedia versions is a strong argument, but its worth noting the notability standards on here are higher than other wikipedias. That may make a difference, although I don't know. scope_creep^Talk 23:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- How is "13 Wikipedia versions" a "strong argument"? Inclusion standards are different enough between languages that the existence of articles in other Wikipedias is generally seen as irrelevant. XOR'easter (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strictly speaking, the argument was to see the sources used in those other articles. Frankly, none of de:Andreas Umland#Einzelnachweise, fr:Andreas Umland#Références, and uk:Андреас Умланд#Примітки have many independent sources. Uncle G (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can I see some real evidence he is notable. So far there is two folk who says he is notable without providing one iota of evidence to say so. scope_creep^Talk 09:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added some search results, above. —Michael Z. 17:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~, [edit: Keep] widely cited author of several books and articles on the political landscape of the eastern Europe Marcelus (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add that he has also just become the board member of Skytte Institute of Political Studies at Tartu University. He is frequently referenced in Ukrainian media as well and it would seem weird not to have a scholarly analyst with a big following to not have a page 2A02:3032:301:6213:3019:CC53:9BAD:7D9F (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus, unclear: do you mean support the deletion nomination or support keeping the article about a widely cited author? —Michael Z. 04:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support keeping the article Marcelus (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I consider him a little biased, he is a widely cited scholar.--Mhorg (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is a well known, even famous political scientist writing on Eastern European subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:NPROF. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2024 (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.