Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Stoltzfus

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. Stifle (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Stoltzfus[edit]

Nathan Stoltzfus (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)

Does not meet WP:PROF - there's no indication of significant impact of his work, hasn't won an award, been a part of a society, or satisfied any of the other criteria. The statements calling his book notable are not sourced. He seems to have only actually written one of the books listed; the others he co-edited. He also does not inherit notability because a notable person writes a forward to a translation. MSJapan (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject did win an Fraenkel Prize from the Weiner Library in London, but that award is pretty obscure, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment His main book "Resistance of the Heart"/"Widerstand des Herzens" does seem to have sparked discussion of the event covered; however possibly already adequately covered at Rosenstrasse protest. Possibly not enough for biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (see below) Comment How can you judge if the Fraenkel Award in Contemporary History is obscure? It is awarded by the Wiener Library, "one of the world's leading and most extensive archives on the Holocaust and Nazi era". According to the information from this institution "The Wiener Library awards the internationally renowned Fraenkel Prize on an annual basis" and Nathan Stoltzfus is listed here:[1]. A book of Nathan Stoltzfus became also the "book of the year" of "The New Statesman" in 1997. It is easy to find secondary sources of this information, but the most important source would be The New Statesman itself. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the archivum of this journal (New Statesman;12/05/97, Vol. 126 Issue 4363, p42, according to [2]). By the way, the book was translated into German and French and it had about 11 editions. Does'nt it mean a notability? Moreover, there are several movies based on this book. According to Barbara Ass (Recovering Rosenstrasse)[3]: "his research led to several German- and English-language documentary films, for which he was writer and consultant. He’s now under contract as a consultant to an independent London film maker, who is writing a screenplay based on his book, Resistance of the Heart: Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse Protest in Nazi Germany. Published in 1996 by W.W. Norton & Co., the book has been highly acclaimed by the English press and by historians.". There is one more statement which I would like to comment: He also does not inherit notability because a notable person writes a forward to a translation. (by MSJapan). Of course, it is truth but please do not stop on the fact that Joshka Fisher had written the foreword to the book of Stoltzfus. Instead of that, please read what Joshka Fisher wrote about Nathan Stoltzfus and about his role in revealing the "shocking" history of Rosenstrasse Protest in nazi Germany. Tescobar (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep New Statesman book of the Year is sufficient for notability as an author. I am not familiar with the Fraenkel Prize, but it can only add to it. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't read the New Statesman for some years but I don't recall it ever awarding a single Book of the Year? What I do recall is that - as with Sunday papers, The Spectator, etc. - in December each of their reviewers selected several of their own favourite books of the year. The wording in this article does say "a" rather than "the" Book of the Year, and judging from the link above Joan Bakewell chose it as one of her three; a compliment in itself, but not quite the magazine's Book of the Year. AllyD (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I followed up on this, and this article (as well as the others in the search) makes it clear that these are contributor choices of multiple works, and no other source uses the singular in reference to the magazine's annual list. MSJapan (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an article from Die Zeit (one of the most important newspaper in Germany): [4] and its second part: [5]. The article mentions that Nathan Stoltzfus started a public debate about one of the most controversial episode of the Nazi German history - the Rosenstrasse protest. His research was crucial to reveal some facts about the protest and also for its interpretation in the context of the discussion of possibility of defeating nasizm by means of peacefull protests. Also the "Die Zeit" editors in the introduction to an article of Nathan Stoltzfus (30 October 2003) identified Resistance of the Heart as the "standard work" on the Rosenstasse protest.
    Calling the Fraenkel Prize obscure reflects the paltry knowledge of the editor who wrote this. The winners are listed at: [6]. They include - in category A, which Nathan Stoltzfus received - various academics at the top of the field of contemporary European History, many of them having Wikipedia biographic articles, or at least cited as authors of papers and books. Tescobar (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paltry? Claim any sort of degree you want; I don't claim any.
I have yet to see any academic literature on the prize where it isn't being mentioned in passing as relates to a winner. Besides, if the Fraenkel Prize doesn't have an article in Wikipedia, how notable could it be? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to Tescobar, the article in Die Zeit is simply a claim that a previous article in Die Zeit written by Stoltzfus was influential. It is neither independent nor significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.(see below) I have access to the cited issue of The New Statesman and can confirm that Joan Bakewell was one of many prominent people to name their three books of the year, and there is no more than a bare mention of the book. I can't see any other claim of notability or significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let us compare the Fraenkel Prize with the other prizes and awards in the field of history. I checked number of google search results for this prize and several other (draft by random from the category:History awards) :
Of course, these results are very rough, some of these awards are known under other (full or shortened) names, but it is very likely, that the Fraenkel Prize is much more popular and renowned than a vast majority of awards already described in wikipedia. By the way, there is a page List of history awards - "a list of notable awards given to persons, group of persons or institutions for their contribution to the study of history". Please read this list. It is completely random, don't you think so? Summerizing, please do not use a presence of an article in Wikipedia as a criterion for notability. Notability should be a criterion for a presence in Wikipedia, but the opposite statement is not true. Tescobar (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, and this is actually a prime example of why that is so; here you are very much comparing apples and oranges. The awards you listed are given out in history (to varying degrees), but for very different reasons and under very different criteria. Hattendorf is given out by the Naval War College for the area of new academic naval history, every two years. The Gladstone is annual, for books published in Britain on non-British history. The Holberg is ten years old and is given in Norway in the wider area of humanities. Add to that that the subject didn't win any of these, and there's no real reason to follow this line of thought. Now, focusing on what he did win, and looking at Fraenkel criteria and winners here, it's often a jointly (and when Stoltzfus got it, triply) awarded prize in two categories at once, given by a library that focuses on Holocaust studies for books in its areas of interest. A better view of GHits is that the third one I got was the H-Net posting for entries, confirming that authors submit their own work without any screening prior to submission. Thus, there are no independent reliable sources for this award - it's either the library itself, or the schools announcing that their faculty have won it. So if the prize isn't notable, neither is anyone who wins it notable for doing so. MSJapan (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neutral. (see below on 21 July for comment re: !vote revision) I look to WP:AUTHOR for this one rather than wp:prof, since his book seems more notable than his professorship. It is not, however, notable enough to make it's author notable. The only criteria that has a chance here is "person has created...a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I don't find evidence of that here. PS: the discussion of the Fraenkel award seems moot to me. Were it a major award, it would confer notability on the book, not necessarily the author. (IMHO) - Wine Guy~Talk 00:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let us assume that the Fraenkel Prize is meaningless and moreover does not contribute to the notability of Nathan Stoltzfus, but only to the notability of his book. As far as his professorship is concerned, I would not say that he is notable as an academic professor. But as a researcher, he - certainly - is notable. He is the first and most important expert on Rosenstrasse protest - his work revealed the facts which have been ignored in post-war Germany and shed new light not only on the Rosenstrasse protest, but also on the problem of responsibility for Holocaust. According to Barbara Ass opinion[7]: Until Stoltzfus began researching the Rosenstrasse incident in 1985, the protest had received little attention, aside from a handful of brief newspaper articles. Nobody knew about it, it was like a non-event. Stoltzfus contradicted leading German historians, who had tried to remove responsibility of "ordinary Germans" for the expansion of fascism. This is not my opinion, I am trying to summarize the statements of Barbara Ass: The notion that an ordinary German could do nothing against the Holocaust, that a handful of crazed Nazis were responsible for the murder of Jews, has been the official accepted wisdom in Germany since the war. The aforementioned article (of Barbara Ass) convinced me, that Nathan Stoltzfus not only researched one of the most important chapter of contemporary history, but also has changed its perception / interpretation. This is the reason why I added his biography to the Wikipedia and why I am sure that he satisfies the first criterion of WP:PROF, i.e. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline and also the 7-th: The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.. The awards, as well as his career as an academic professor, are matter of minor importance. According to the biographic notes from "Who's who in the world" and "Cambridge University Press"[8] he was named an H. F. Guggenheim Foundation Research Scholar and has received research grants from the Fulbright Commission, IREX, the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, the German Academic Exchange Commission (DAAD), and the Albert Einstein Institution. - even if these achievements make them an "average professor", his research and impact of his research is outstanding and much more notable than the professorship by itself. Tescobar (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in reply ... I'll try to make this quick. I do appreciate your passion for the topic, unfortunately you have bolstered my opinion that while Prof. Stolzfus may be an excellent historian, he's not notable by WP standards. Lots of great people aren't. A few points: 1) Barbara ASH (not Ass as you have referred to her) appears to be a Communications/Media Relations Manager at the same University as Stoltzfus, she's promoting the work of one of the universities professors. 2) While Marquis Who's Who is can be considered a reliable source, it is generally not considered enough to establish notability. This has been discussed periodically over the years, here's one discussion, there are several more like it. 3) Many, many professors have gotten plenty of research grants, in many fields they wouldn't be professors if they didn't. I could go on, but I think that's enough to make my humble opinion known. -Wine Guy~Talk 15:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for the tragicomic misspelling of her name - the English language is full of traps... Right, she is related to the same university, so that her review should not be taken into consideration. I did not knew about it. Tescobar (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In its "Books of the Year" section New Statesman asks the "best living reviewers" to identify the "best books of the year" (three books each. The section leads with prominent Reviewer JOAN BAKEWELLwho leads her choice of three books with: "Resistance of the Heart by Nathan Stoltzius (Norton, L21) tells the story of the Rosenstrasse protests in Nazi Germany when women married to Jews rebelled and won their freedom. Here is human interest interwoven with scholarship. Had resistance to Hitler been as outspoken as were these brave women, he would have caved in." Average available space per book is ca. one sentence. Other academic historians on this same 1997 list --rare on this New Statesmen list --are: Richard J Evans' In Defence of History (Granta,L15.99) Charles S Maier's Dissolution (Princeton University Press, L21.95) See Books of the year (Dec 5, 1997): 42-46. at http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/docview/224378415/abstract/13F6211220369E5159C/31?accountid=4840

As for the Ernst Fraenkel prize, the one Stoltzfus received was "category A," the most prominent of two annual awards with a prize of $6,000. (http://www.wienerlibrary.co.uk/Fraenkel-Prize). It is given for the best new manuscript in Twentieth Century History (not "on Holocaust studies."). Stoltzfus was not one of three winners as "Stoltzfus got it, triply awarded" might suggest, but was co-winner with Mark Mazower. The process of selection for the Fraenkel is questioned here, but the prize is selected by the Institute's library's Academic Advisory Board: Prof Richard Bessel, Prof Jane Caplan, Prof Christopher Clark, Prof Sir Richard Evans, Prof Elizabeth Harvey, Prof Cornelie Usborne (http://www.wienerlibrary.co.uk/Governance). Judging by the recipients of the Category A Fraenkel Prize, the selection process works well: a recent (2012) winner is Mary Fulbrook preceded by Paul Betts, Neil Gregor, Stanislao Pugliese, Atina Grossmann, Helmut Walser Smith, Mark Roseman, Robert Moeller, Joanna Bourke, Vicki Caron, Jeffrey Herf, Marion Kaplan, Omer Bartov, and Richard J Evans as well as Nathan Stoltzfus. These were chosen among others chosen because their research, in the words of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) "has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline." In various cases the Fraenkel Prize is the sole book prize these awardees have since more famous prizes like the Pulitzer for example are very rarely issued to historians of modern Europe.

An article by Barbara Ash is criticized as unreliable simply because Ash is a writer for the university where Stoltzfus teaches, but discrediting can occur only by pointing out inaccuracies.Similarly, criticism that information on Stoltzfus' page is found on a Wikipedia page for the Rosenstrasse Protest is also inapposite since Wikipedia guidelines are that "If the article duplicates another, you can redirect it to the other one; there's no need for it to be deleted first."

Stoltzfus' page is established primarily for his impact. As Die Zeit just reported on February 27, 2013 ( http://www.zeit.de/wissen/geschichte/2013-02/fabrikaktion-rosenstrasse-berlin-ns-protest-1943): After the war the protest action in the Rosenstrasse was a long almost forgotten episode of Nazi history. When U.S. historian Nathan Stoltzfus wrote in 1989 about the demonstration he unleashed an "ongoing controversy." Writing of his impact generally, then German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer wrote in 2000 that "The women of the Rosenstrasse will, thanks to Nathan Stoltzfus, take their well-deserved place in the so contradictory history of the German resistance against the brown barbarism." (see the translation on http://www.chambon.org/rosenstrasse_fischer_en.htm)

In the mid-1980s Stoltzfus had Fulbright Commission and IREX grants to live in East and West Germany to study the Rosenstrasse Protest as the first to publish scholarship on this protest. His publications on the Rosenstrasse Protest in public intellectual forums included Die Zeit (July, 21, 1989, [International edition, July 28, 1989]) in German and the The Atlantic Monthly, September, 1992, in English. He published an article on the Rosenstrasse Protest in Geschichte und Gesellschaft 21(2), Spring, 1995, and his book Resistance of the Heart (WW Norton: 1995) was translated into German, French, Greek and Swedish. His co-edited book Social Outsiders in Nazi Germany including his work on intermarried couples in Nazi Germany was translated into Turkish, and his work has also been published in Russian: “Protest Nemetskih v usloviyah total’noyi voiny,” in Women and War, 1941-1945: Russia and Germany, N. Vashkay, ed. (Volgograd: Volgograd Center of German Studies: 2006).

The impact of Stoltzfus' work could be documented in many ways other than translations and the many responses it has generated inside and outside of academia. In its German translation Resistance of the Heart placed second on the Bestenliste of Best non-fiction books, October 1999. In Swedish it was the Main Selection, March-April, 2004 Clio-Den historiska bokklubben (Clio-The Historical Book Club), Stockholm. According to Joschka Fischer (http://www.chambon.org/rosenstrasse_fischer_en.htm) Resistance of the Heart tells of "humanity against a total dictatorship bent on human destruction, a dictatorship against which, according to one of the most persistent post-war legends went, 'one supposedly couldn’t do anything anyway.' The other legend was: 'We didn’t known anything about it.' . . . There is a second message in this book, which lifts it above the vast literature about National Socialist times. Stoltzfus wrote this remarkable chapter from the darkest years of German history in such a way, that the dimension of freedom of decision and therefore individual responsibility does not disappear. . . The courage and the unexpected success of the women of the Rosenstrasse are like a light in the abysmal darkness of those years. But what about all the others?"

The academic impact can be measured by citations according to Wikipedia which suggests using the Web of Knowledge database to identify citations. This measure, comparing other academic historians in Stoltzfus' field who have a Wikipedia page, is based on a search using complete names as well as last name and first initial.) Historian with Wikipedia article in field Number of Citations Andreas Daum 16

Wolf Gruner 15

Harold Marcuse 12

Richard Steigman-Gall 9

Nathan Stoltzfus 17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milnae (talk • contribs) 18:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While you wrote a lot, you didn't at all address Wikipedia notability criteria. You mentioned that the previous winner of the Fraenkel Prize was Mary Fulbrook. As a history undergrad, I've read her work and she's a well-known researcher of German history. Same goes for Konrad Jarausch. Neither one of them meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Please accept that not every accomplished prolific academic is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- widely held book by a top press, plus substantial reviews, and appearances on significant lists (New Statesman book of the Year) satisfies WP:PROF#C1; One of the delete votes said that there would need to be multiple, independent reviews of the book. Both the article's citations and a check on worldcat or JSTOR shows that this is definitely true. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, this was not a New Statesman book of the year. It was one of Joan Bakewell's books of the year. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MSCuthbert. Without the prize book/auther still notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On further investigation and reflection prompted by Mscuthbert I accept that reviews at JSTOR 41444602, JSTOR 41401397 and JSTOR 1433589, along with the 722 library holdings listed by Worldcat, are enough for notability. Tescobar and Milnae, who have remarkably similar writing styles, might like to note that a clear, succinct argument based on evidence is far more persuasive than lengthy, mostly irrelevant ramblings. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you, please, write me which part of my argumentation is "irrelevant rambling"? Thanks in advance - Tescobar (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on !vote revision above. I too have investigated and reflected further, and have revised my !vote of 17 July from delete to neutral regarding Prof. Stoltzfus. It seems to me that a great deal of the rather lengthy discussion here revolves around the book Resistance of the Heart, not around the author, Stoltzfus. I have come to believe that the book is indeed notable, and would support keeping an article about the book, if WP had one. We don't currently have such an article, so I can't recommend redirecting Nathan Stoltzfus → Resistance of the Heart. I remain unconvinced that the prof./author is notable in his own right; I don't see that he "has made significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline, broadly construed", but perhaps I'm being overly semantic. So, it is in the interest of consensus building—and in the hope that it will help prevent the closing admin from tearing their hair out—that I've revised my opinion. -Wine Guy~Talk 18:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just have changed my first vote from "comment" to "keep". I did not know that I could vote (in Polish wikipedia the main author of an article cannot vote). Tescobar (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to me that according to the guidelines it is clear that the article should remain. As indicated by the wide discussion and debate he has spurred (as indicated by the articles, reviews, and prizes he has received, many of which specifically cite the pioneering nature of his research) Stoltzfus is notable for his impact, both in his field and in the broader intellectual community. He is also widely cited, according to the citation source recommended by the guidelines as well as other authoritative sources. His impact is not limited to his book Resistance of the Heart, although that is his most well known work, but is based on the ideas he advances not only in that wbook but in other books and articles as well. I would also note that the argument for deletion seems to be charactized, at least in some of the comments, by "excessive zeal," which the guidelines cite as a negative point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frege1978 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Another keep vote from a brand-new user. I'm curious how this discussion became so popular so quickly. Say what you want about zeal, the criteria for notability are what they are. I'm an inclusionist and prefer to keep content on the wiki, but we all have to play by the rules. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious too. Yet, as an experienced user / editor of pl.wikipedia, I can say that the number of brand-new users in AFD is proportional to the notability of a subject. There is also another possible reason of voting as an anonymous user rather than as a regular (but not well known and respected) user - it is the probability of retaliation. How does it work? Some logged user X, with non-zero contribution, votes in AFD. Another user Y, much more experienced than X, checks contribution of X and nominates his/her articles for deletion. Using sock-puppets, although illegal in votings, could be a method to avoid such a revenge-action. Unfortunately I did not know about this when I voted for "keep" in this discussion. Several hours later all my articles (i.e. this one:-) were nominated for deletion. This is how it works. I am sure, that the nomination of Nathan Stoltzfus for deletion, 4 years after I had created this article, was strictly related with my "keep" vote in another discussion. Of course, the reason of nomination does not matter - if a subject of nominated article does not meet the criteria of notability, the article should be deleted.Tescobar (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the notability criteria for academics are met here, as discussed above, in particular criterion number one. It is met in several ways: the number of citations, including according to numbers obtained using one of the two sources listed in the rules under "citation metrics," web of knowledge; significant awards and prestguous fellowships (Frankel prize, fullbright). Stoltzfus also seems to come under the notability criteria for creative professionals, specifically criterion number 3; he has created significant work that has been the subject of multiple independent reviews. I comment here only on the article itself, rather than other users, consistent with discussion guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frege1978 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to share Tescobar's and Milnae's lack of focus on the relevant. There are reasons to consider Stoltzfus notable, but getting a research grant from the Fullbright Commission is far from being one of them. As regards Web of Knowledge, when I do a search with

AU=(Stoltzfus N*) Refined by: Web of Science Categories=( HISTORY OR SOCIAL SCIENCES INTERDISCIPLINARY OR HUMANITIES MULTIDISCIPLINARY ) Timespan=All years. Databases=BKCI-S, SSCI, BKCI-SSH, SCI-EXPANDED, A&HCI, IC, CPCI-SSH, CPCI-S, CCR-EXPANDED

I find find five citations, one of them a self-citation. What parameters are you using to find more citations? Phil Bridger (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Phil, that the new users who haven't contributed elsewhere make me question whether a keep vote (which as I said above I believe is right) actually will help improve the encyclopedia and keep it neutral. But I will say that in the humanities it's well known that Web of Science is absolutely terrible at finding citations in part because it doesn't understand humanities footnote formats (esp. references in discursive footnotes). I publish in science and humanities forums (digital humanities being like that...) and I know from my own searches/reading journals, that I get about the same number of cities in each. But almost every citation I get from science journals/proceedings/etc. gets picked up by WoS, Google Scholar, etc. only a tiny fraction (maybe 10%?) of the humanities citations get picked up there, and that's only in the past 3 years; before that, when humanities journals online weren't native PDFs, but just OCR scans, it was even worse. Hence why I think library holdings of books are much more accurate. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is true, and I have already given a keep opinion partially based on library holdings. I was just interested to know what the basis was for Frege1978's claim that Web of Science came up with a significant number of citations, because, even allowing for the anti-humanities bias, I don't think that four non-self citations can be considered significant. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I read that part of his comments as listing some of the ways that people have generally been considered notable, not as an argument for notability of NS. I see now that your interpretation was right, but it doesn't matter here. As we've both said, there's enough else out there. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: His book Resistance of the Heart seems to me to have made a sufficient impact to render its author notable and for us to have a page on him useful. In addition to the "things" about it mentioned in the text the following reviews might be helpful:
Bessel, Richard 1997. "Resistance of the Heart - Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse protest in Nazi Germany". Times Literary Supplement: 27.
Schilde, K. 1997. "Nathan Stoltzfus: Resistance of the Heart. Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse Protest in Nazi Germany. New York/London 1996". ZEITSCHRIFT FUR GESCHICHTSWISSENSCHAFT -BERLIN- VEB DEUTSCHER VERLAG DER WISSENSCHAFTEN. 45 (9): 862.
Haag, John. 1998. "[Review of] Resistance of the Heart: Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse Protest in Nazi Germany". The Georgia Review. 52 (2): 384-387. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Wikepedia's notability criteria for academics includes, as nimber one, number of citations. The criteria include a section called "citation metrics" that states: "the only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus." I entered Nathan Stoltzfus as "author" in Web of Knowledge and found 17 citations. Wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_"academics" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frege1978 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you found 17 papers by Nathan Stoltzfus, not 17 citations to those papers. In fact your search finds no citations whatsoever, because his only papers with any citations were published under N. Stoltzfus, not Nathan Stoltzfus. To do the search properly you need to put Stoltzfus N* in the author field and then use the panel on the left to refine the search by deselecting mathematics and pharmacology from the categories because those papers are clearly by other people called N. Stoltzfus. Selecting "create citation report" will then tell you that my figures above are correct. This discussion is a bit of a side issue because there is a clear consensus, including me, to keep the article on other grounds. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2013 (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/Nathan_Stoltzfus&oldid=1080017101"