Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominik Bartmanski

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Sandstein 16:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Bartmanski

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Dominik Bartmanski (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)

Doesn't appear to pass via GNG or PROF. Subject has no notable academic position (named chair or anything like that) and their claim to fame is co-authorship of a book--a book that garnered some reviews, sure, but that's it: it does not mean notability for the author. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some citations, but not nothing spectacular ([1]). A single co-authored book is also not a pass for notability, it can hardly be called influential yet (~50 cites). Notability for authors and academics requires 'wide citations' and IMHO those beings from works that are cited at least in triple digits. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Piotrus, thank you. Let me add that publishing an academic book in the first place is, as you know, no mean feat--but (and I'm not saying this to you, because you know, but to other readers) we establish notability based on the impact a book has had. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you and let me add that the General Notability Guideline says that any topic is presumed notable if it has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Philafrenzy (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Philafrenzy, but given the recent article improvement that means the book, not one of its authors. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that you believe the book to be notable under GNG? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering the same thing, Drmies. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If, for the sake of argument, we agree the book is notable, the article could be converted to a book article now. But what happens when the next one comes out in months? It also will probably qualify for an article as a book (I will write it when the reviews are in). We would then have two articles about books but none about the authors. Isn't that a bit odd and a poorer reader experience than a biography that includes all of an author's works and puts them in context? Philafrenzy (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how it works. We don't convert an article on a non-notable co-author into an article on a book. If you feel the book reaches WP:NBOOK, then create an article on the book, focusing on its content and reviews and cited only to reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Do not use the book article as an excuse to promote one of the co-authors. Softlavender (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Promote"? What makes you think I am promoting anything? I am asking which is the better reader experience? Separate articles about books or a biography of the author that discusses all their books? Philafrenzy (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia inclusion is established by our specific notability guidelines, not by someone's idea of "reader experience". Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that to suggest that reader experience isn't addressed through our notability guideline WP:PAGEDECIDE? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a deletion debate about this specific person, not a debate about an existing content fork. Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: That's not how it works. We don't convert an article on a non-notable co-author into an article on a book. Why not? Theoretically, would that not be one possible application of WP:PAGEDECIDE? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is a deletion debate about this specific person, not a debate about an existing content fork. Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You are prioritising Wikipedia process over reader experience. No reader is going to understand why we would have a reasonably long article about a book but not feel its author qualified for an article. Books don't write themselves. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Philafrenzy, that is nonsense. Most book articles on Wikipedia do not have articles on the author. The exception is when the author meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia inclusion is established by our specific notability guidelines, not by someone's idiosyncratic idea of "reader experience". Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They should have articles on the authors and there is nothing idiosyncratic about it. Books do not spontaneously create themselves, they are the result of the author's experience and views. This prioritising of process over reader experience is precisely what causes decisions here that people in the real world find impossible to understand. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am astonished that you understand so little of Wikipedia's notability requirements and why they exist, and its inclusion criteria and why they exist. Check out What Wikipedia Is Not. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stand by my original vote. The recent expansion involves citing from book reviews. I think that yes, the book is notable (several academic reviews are sufficient). But notability is not inherited. The book is notable because it gets independent, in-depth reviews. The author is not notable yet, because nobody has written about him, and his citations are not sufficient to make him 'influential' in the field. Once has has ~2 more books, preferably solo-authored, I'd say he is notable (plus, at that points, at least one of his works will have citations in triple digits...). PS. To the closing admin: if this is deleted before the book article is created, please soft-delete it by redirecting to a stub on the book, which can be created by copy-pasting the relevant section from the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the scholarly impact is relatively normal, no significantly influential idea or theory, no post as named chair or journal editor, no significant award, does not seem to be a widely-cited expert in the media, etc, so does not pass WP:PROF. Note also that higher number of citations is in work with multiple authors (which is not uncommon, but also weighs against individual impact). Perfectly adequate academic, maybe a more influential career ahead, but not notable enough for Wikipedia now. Bakazaka (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been expanded since nomination and although he doesn't pass PROF yet, he does pass the GNG as having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This is evidenced by the reviews of his work which address it directly and in detail and are reliable secondary sources such as Times Higher Education, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, iaspm@journal, Information Communication & Society, Qualitative Sociology, Contemporary Sociology, and Russian Sociological Review. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article subject easily passes the GNG because of the multiple indepth reviews in reliable secondary sources. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Of one book, which was co-authored. Please find me in-depth discussion of the subject of the article. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Whispyhistory: Exactly. The subject (person) is not subject to any in-depth or even passing treatment anywhere. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Piotrus:. I do not understand strong reasons to exclude him and will leave to more experienced editors. His previous work on post-communist nostalgia has received significant coverage from independent sources relevant to that subject [2][3] and he is referred by his name. He has a number publications [4]. He was awarded the Junior Theorist Prize of the International Sociological Association and the University of Yale’s Sussman Prize for best dissertation in 2012[5]. An alternative suggestion is to merge the information into an article on the Vinyl book, omitting his other contributions. I hope that helps. Whispyhistory (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whispyhistory, I wish I had as glowing a resume as this subject, but the fact remains that he does not yet pass. An article of his was cited in an edited collection--that's great, and I will call that significant discussion of that one article, but a few of mine are too and that's not enough to make me notable. (As a side note, and I say this to Philafrenzy as well, that is the kind of citation that makes mention of an article worthwhile in an encyclopedic article; it allows one to say something like "Bartmanski has published on post-communist streetscapes in former Eastern Europe".) As for the awards, they need to be really notable before they count (certainly toward PROF), and departmental awards aren't considered notable. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Drmies. (I think I also won some award during my graduate student time, and I hardly think it contributes much to my notability). ISA's award is a bigger deal, but it's not a major award (I've been to ISA's conferences before, but never heard of this award). It's one of dozens if not more awards ISA gives each year, and it's an award by one of their chapters (of which it has few dozens). If each chapter gives 1-2 awards, well... plus this award has no coverage outside of ISA and occasional press-release by the recipient's university. It's nice, but does not establish notability. My rule of thumb test for which award would do it is simple - does it have a Wikipedia article (that's referenced enough to prove the award is notable)? List of sociology awards is a good start, through it's not comprehensive. But Junior Theorist Prize of the International Sociological Association RC16 section is not enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not pass either GNG or PROF. The book he co-authored with Ian Woodward might merit its own Wikipedia article, but this person does not meet Wikipedia notability thresholds as an article subject himself, as there is no in-depth significant coverage of him in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (BTW, the book he co-authored with Ian Woodward seems to be virtually the only context in which he is mentioned anywhere.) Softlavender (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Piotrus: the bulk of the prose is about the book, so, if that was notable, a redirect per WP:ATD would be in order. Unfortunately, it isn't currently independently notable, and so there is no ATD. ——SerialNumber54129 12:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename (move page, switch redirects) to Vinyl: The Analogue Record in the Digital Age. The book is notable, the article is mostly about the book, and it would take little effort to re-word the article accordingly, as information about the author is pertinent to the understanding of the topic (i.e. the book). I think a redirect should be left behind, as currently this book is what the author is known for, and should contain verifiable information about the author(s). The article could be further improved by adding some biographical information about Ian Woodward, but I suppose such discussions regarding further article improvement are beyond the scope of this AfD. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per the suggestion just above. The book passes WP:NBOOK, and the biographical material on the co-author can be made secondary (it's not like there's a whole lot of it, anyway). XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject has clearly distinguished themselves academically, and the inclusion of the book is set in context of their budding and curious academic career. We lose more by spinning the book out of context into a separate article, at present we have both his career and the book presented in an engaging format as per WP:PAGEDECIDE. No Swan So Fine (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far the consensus seems to be split on Delete and Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- As a matter of principle and pragmatic fact I worship at the very feet of Drmies but I disagree here. The guy's book is reviewed in significant independent sources and thus does he meet WP:AUTHOR and so we want to keep this one. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's certainly the right spirit, and in about thirty minutes this cake is coming out of the oven and I'll cut you a slice. But I disagree: AUTHOR does not have that, and "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" is just way too much honor for one co-edited book. So, thirty minutes, and tell me if you want coffee or tea. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion that the book is not significant is not backed up by the facts. It is not co-edited, it is co-authored. If it wasn't significant it wouldn't be notable and there is broad agreement here that it is notable because of the many detailed reviews it has received in reliable sources. The author thus satisfies WP:AUTHOR as being someone who "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work" that has been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". The decision to cover the book within the author's biography is further supported by WP:PAGEDECIDE which states that there are "times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context". Philafrenzy (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Philafrenzy, your rather loose reading of all these blue links, which you are able to strew around like so much candy, makes just about every single tenured academic in the world notable for a standalone article. All you need is a book and a review or two (one? three? does it matter?). Since usually a book is required for tenure, at least in the humanities, and since the review machinery is well-organized, now basically anything goes. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't the first to mention either of those policies, see above. There is nothing "loose" about it nor are they "candies". We have a policy with specific criteria that he clearly meets. The policy's wider application is of no concern here. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2018 (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/Dominik_Bartmanski&oldid=870265076"