Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:47, 2 December 2016

J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn't meet our notability requirements, the only sources are Worldcat and one book. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article effectively has one source. Seems to be a vehicle for expounding the views of Smelser and his colleague. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. and as discussed on the talk page. Kierzek (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article's creator: I'd note that the page was nominated for deletion a day after it was created. The nom apparently did not perform a WP:BEFORE to assess the subject's notability and look for additional sources, which I easily located and since added to the article: diff.

In a similar fashion, the nom questioned the notability of Ronald Smelser, one of the authors cited in the article & whose views are being "expounded" in it (please see Talk:Ronald Smelser#Query regarding notability). That was despite the subject being an academic with 30+ years of tenure at a major university & an author of multiple books, which have been published by university presses and widely cited & reviewed. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources used in the article indicate significant coverage. They appear to be passing mentions. My comment (not AfD) regarding Smelser is irrelevant, and I waited until another editor had also expressed concern about notability here before AfD'ing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How extensively is the company discussed in the book by Smelser/Davies? --Hegvald (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that coverage is fairly extensive for a niche publisher. For example, the authors treat Fedorowicz as the leading player in the specialty / militaria genre that publishes what they define as "guru" authors of the Eastern Front, such as Franz Kurowski, Richard Landwehr and others:

In some cases, as their [gurus'] appeal grows, they graduate up the scale of publishing importance from self-publishing to the myriad small presses, (...) such as Schiffer Publishing, Bibliophile Legion Books, Merriam Press; to the top, particularly to the Fedorowicz publishing house, which turns out scores of books dealing with the German army and related units during World War Two. To be published through Fedorowicz is to have arrived.

The authors also discuss Fedorowicz's role in bringing Kurowski to the North American market; their apparent agreement with the need to counter-balance the "defamation of the German soldier"; the licensing arrangement with Stackpole Books & how that expanded the reach of the authors that Fedorowicz had translated from German, etc. It'd say being covered in a work published by Cambridge University Press & held by 470 libraries is WP:SIGCOV for a publisher such as Fedorowicz. Hope this answers the question. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry? You're saying that Smelser et al's work being held by 470 libraries is significant coverage of this publishing company? How exactly does that work? It is this company that needs "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources, not Smelser et al's book. That would be the test for an article about that book, not this article. I think you're confused about what we're discussing here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that being covered in a book by two academics is significant coverage for the publisher in question. I.e. big fish (Fedorowicz) in a small pond (specialty / militaria publishing) as they are being profiled in a notable book (The Myth of the Eastern Front), vs having been profiled in a local edition of Winnipeg Free Press (See WP:AUD). Hope this helps clarify. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "big fish small pond" characterisation is entirely unsupported with evidence. Your relationship to Smelser et al begs the question, given your promotion of them throughout WP, including through the creation of this article and the article on Smelser. The notability of the book (or Smelser) isn't relevant to whether this publishing company is notable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently extensive coverage in a book by two professional historians and published by the Cambridge University Press. Coffman's reasoning looks convincing to me. --Hegvald (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What has been described is hardly "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources, and certainly not "extensive coverage". It is one source, for starters, and the coverage described is hardly significant. Are we to have an article on any publishing company that has ever been mentioned in a book? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coffman claims that the coverage of this subject in Smelser's and Davies' book is extensive, not just a mention. If you are disputing this, please discuss their treatment of JJF based on the content of the book, not just by dismissing it. --Hegvald (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hegcald, you are missing the point that it is only one book and the opinion of two men as to the work of an entire company; that is not extensive independent coverage. Even with addition from others I am not convinced at this time. Kierzek (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be some discussions about the extensiveness of how this publisher is discussed in Smelsers book. I want to add that the book is on Google books (link), so everybody can form his own opinion on this issue. Dead Mary (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't even close: there is no coverage on Google News whatsoever, no non-affiliated hits in Gbooks. As for this talk of 'counter-balancing the defamation' of Nazi Germany's soldier's, fortunately, I don't even need to get into that. This flagrantly fails WP:ORG.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally I would agree that this a non-notable special interest publisher. But it has a certain impact on the "popular culture of the Romancers", as documented by Smelser/Davies. The company provided translations of many revisionist and apologetic works, many written by German veterans, and made them easily available to an English speaking audience. Thus Fedorowicz inadvertently shaped the way German military history of WW II is presented in the English Wikipedia. In fact, some of the company's titles, like their "Panzer Ace"-series (3 vols.), were apparently instrumental in shaping popular culture, i.e. memory of WW II, so strongly, that a stand-alone articles like "Panzer ace" in popular culture is considered worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia. That being said, the main argument for deletion is formalistic in nature. I doubt that WP:ORG is up to the peculiarities of the publishing market. Hard to tell, for example, if many of the smaller University Presses would be up to that challenge. So I did not find third-party source about the UP of Kentucky, which publishes many translations from German military historians. Anyway, there are now three further commendations by third party sources. Surely, the respective authors are like-minded and would not qualify as authorities of military historiography, but they support what are most likely unremarkable and uncontroversial claims, namely that J.J. Fedorowicz has a reputation and an impact in the field of militaria, which is exactly what Smelser/Davies claim. I am surprised, however, that this article was nominated for deletion so quickly, instead of asking for further sources or even adding content first.--Assayer (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assayer, your tagteam support of K.e.coffman is becoming highly predictable. I'm afraid that your argument just doesn't stack up against GNG, where is the requirement is "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". This publishing house just doesn't have that. FWIW, this article came to my attention so quickly because K.e.coffman immediately started linking the article to the publisher fields in multiple articles on my watchlist. I mentioned my concerns about notability on the talk page (which K.e.coffman did not respond to), and my concerns were reflected by another editor, so I nominated it. Simple as that. That is how we test notability on WP. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point was not how the article came to your attention, but that you nominated it for deletion within 25 hours. Simple as that. (But I'll keep in mind how notability is tested on WP.) I understand that in Wikipedia to speak of WP:TAGTEAM is considered to be uncivil. What you seem to suggest to me is, that I should not contribute in any discussions where K.e.coffmann is involved, unless I disagree and vice versa. Why won't you just explain, why you think that the cited commendations do not make up for the problem of "one source", since you strongly emphasized the plural? Are there still too few sources? Do you consider the coverage to be insignificant, and how, then, do you define "significant"? Do you think that these sources are not reliable? --Assayer (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether referring to editors as a tag team is uncivil or not depends on whether the claim can be substantiated or not. You regularly turn up on articles on my rather limited watchlist where K.e.coffmann is already involved (or vice versa), and I have yet to see a thread where you disagreed with him/her, often you appear to bolster each other's opinions. In my experience on en WP, it is rare that two editors' views so closely correspond, so it is hard to assume good faith in these circumstances. I've seen the same type of behaviour over the years on Yugoslavia-related topics, and I could easily provide a significant number of diffs of your editing and K.e.coffmann's to illustrate my concerns. To answer the substantive question, on face value, "significant coverage in multiple sources" means that more than one source has significant coverage. What may constitute significant coverage in Smelser et al's book is a matter of opinion, from what I can see of this clearly seminal text, I don't consider it is. The other sources have passing mentions at best. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then it seems that you missed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German tank aces, where I was certainly not in favor of Keep & Move and still think, that the whole concept of that article is misleading. It is true, that coffman's efforts encouraged me to contribute to a larger degree to the English Wikipedia, simply because beforehand I had, given the sheer number of sources of, imo, ridiculously low quality constantly being used, written off English Wikipedia on Nazi Germany military history as fancruft. If I can help to improve the situation by my knowledge of German language sources, I will be happy to do so, even if you don't like my opinions.--Assayer (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting 25 hours to nominate for deletion is in no way hasty, as these things go. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as nom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above is considered a duplicate iVote. Suggest it be stricken. Pls see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Miscellaneous advice:

"If you are the nominator of an article for deletion, your desire to delete it is assumed. Because of this, you do not get to !vote (that is, for the second time) in your own AfD."

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- as the editor who started the article I believe I do get to cast a vote (unlike the nom above :-) ). I've not found that the arguments advocating deletion have been sufficient at this AfD, for the following reasons:

Getting hits in gNews is a not requirements for WP:NCORP. In fact, the news hits are often a sign of a company doing self-promotion. The guidelines state:

WP:CORPDEPTH: "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." -- we have at least one source that provides WP:SIGCOV. Other sources cited confirm that the subject is indeed notable in its space.
WP:AUD: "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability" -- which we have here in an international source, a widely held book written by two professional historians. Smelser & Davies describe JJF as "the leading press" in its niche; this is sufficient claim to notability in my view.

The statement "no non-affiliated hits in Gbooks" appears to be incorrect as DeadMary has provided a link to the Myth of the Eastern Front from Google books; here it is again: link. Or is there another definition of what "non-affiliated" means?

The argument that "the requirement is 'significant coverage in multiple reliable sources'" seems to be a misstatement, as this is not the language that appears in WP:GNG. The pertinent language from GNG is:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

There's no requirement there that multiple reliable sources provide significant coverage each. The guideline further states:

"We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view" and (from CORPDEPTH) "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability".

Multiple sources have indeed been provided and paint a "reasonably balanced" picture of the press: it receives praise from militaria authors, while two historians who studied the subject have provided a critical assessment. There's been no arguments advanced why these sources should not be considered reliable.

In sum, I don't believe that the delete votes have provided sufficient arguments at this AfD that are consistent with Wikipedia's policies and notability guidelines. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It will be unsurprising to most editors reading this that the creator of the article is against its deletion, just as the nominator is for deletion. I struggle to follow your argumentation. If multiple sources were not required, one would therefore be sufficient. It is accepted that one source is not a sufficient basis to establish the notability of a subject, therefore reliable sources are required. They need to cover the subject in a significant way. It doesn't say that if one source contains significant coverage, that's ok. Even if we accepted that Smelser and Davies' coverage of this publishing house is significant (which I don't), the other sources cannot in any way be considered to provide significant coverage. They are passing mentions at best. Therefore this article fails the GNG test as it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and should be deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "It doesn't say that if one source contains significant coverage, that's ok" -- in fact, WP:GNG does:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM...."

Per CORPDEPTH, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." My contention is that the coverage in The Myth is not trivial nor incidental. The other sources present confirm that the subject is notable in its field and provide a different perspective. The coverage in toto needs to be significant, which I believe it is in this case. The OP appears to be misinterpreting the guideline in question. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I hate to see useful, referenced information discarded because it is not considered relevant. I don't like it when K.e.coffman does it and I'm not too keen on it here. Smelser and Davies seem to say that Fedorowicz is atop the heap in its niche, which is good, but the nature of their book means that much of it amounts to short case studies of rather niche-y things. According to the index, pages 206–18 cover the website Feldgrau.net (formerly German armed Forces in WWII). Likewise, Mark Yerger has similar coverage to Fedorowicz in Smelser and Davies. Do Feldgrau and Yerger deserve articles? (Maybe they do. I don't know.) I lean keep because I don't like to see valuable work digging up information go to waste, but I'm not sure this article currently demonstrates notability. Srnec (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Going by the reception section of this publisher has been discussed in multiple scholarly sources. It's a niche military history publisher, we shouldn't expect to see dozens and dozens of hits, but there's obviously enough depth of coverage for a decent article. Joe Roe (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would appear, from writer k.e.coffmann's editing reputation, that the primary reason for this article is to be his platform to show how shoddy its publication reliability is, and then use the article as proof to discredit any Wiki-references to the books published by this company - such a sham is beneath Wikipedia, and we don't need this kind of tactic does not merit taking up valuable time and bandwidth for Wikipedia and its writers. As Peacemaker67 has mentioned above, I don't believe it meets notability standards Philby NZ (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 *'''Comment'''. I hate to see useful, referenced information discarded because it is not considered relevant. I don't like it [[Talk:"Fighter_Pilots%27_Revolt"_incident#Suggested_move|when K.e.coffman does it]] and I'm not too keen on it here. Smelser and Davies seem to say that Fedorowicz is atop the heap in its niche, which is good, but the nature of their book means that much of it amounts to short case studies of rather niche-y things. According to the index, pages 206–18 cover the website ''Feldgrau.net'' (formerly ''German armed Forces in WWII''). Likewise, Mark Yerger has similar coverage to Fedorowicz in Smelser and Davies. Do ''Feldgrau'' and Yerger deserve articles? (Maybe they do. I don't know.) I lean keep because I don't like to see valuable work digging up information go to waste, but I'm not sure this article currently demonstrates notability. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 03:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''. Going by the reception section of this publisher has been discussed in multiple scholarly sources. It's a niche military history publisher, we shouldn't expect to see dozens and dozens of hits, but there's obviously enough depth of coverage for a decent article. [[User:Joe Roe|Joe Roe]] ([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]]) 12:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' It would appear, from writer k.e.coffmann's editing reputation, that the primary reason for this article is to be his platform to show how shoddy its publication reliability is, and then use the article as proof to discredit any Wiki-references to the books published by this company - such a sham is beneath Wikipedia, and we don't need this kind of tactic does not merit taking up valuable time and bandwidth for Wikipedia and its writers. As Peacemaker67 has mentioned above, I don't believe it meets notability standards [[User:Philby NZ|Philby NZ]] ([[User talk:Philby NZ|talk]]) 21:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)