Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:33, 8 February 2022

Andreas Fulda

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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_creep 03:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 04:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 04:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 04:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 04:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 04:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete as the subject does not meet Misplaced Pages: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)

• 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)

• Thank you for your analysis, Asilvering (talk · contribs). Striking my comment and supporting keep per WP:NAUTHOR, a guideline that I am not well-versed in. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  To be clear, I don't think this is an obvious WP:NAUTHOR pass either; but unlike many of the other guidelines, that one allows for significant coverage (or citation) of an author's work to count for notability, rather than significant coverage of the author themselves. -- asilvering (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Weak keep under WP:NAUTHOR, not WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - clearly does not meet WP:NPROF, and I don't think he passes NAUTHOR either. One of the reviews is for an article, not a book, which appears on the website of the same publisher which published the journal the article was in. So I would question the independence of that review. Onel5969 12:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Which review are you talking about? I could try to resolve this but the only reviews I see are for books so I'm not sure what you mean. -- asilvering (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

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_creep 09:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

• KEEP passes WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR as Google Scholar describes itself here(Cited by 210). --Arunudoy - talk 08:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

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_creep 11:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@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)

The 1st above. Both the book and review have been published, by the same publisher. It is not independent. scope_creep 18:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates
• Relisted AfD debates