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. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar S. Paulsson (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 GNG. Does not meet WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Subject is the author of one significant book Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw 1940-1945. Per his scholar profile he has authored 13 works (1 book, edited one book by Engelking, 1 journal article with 40 citations, 4 journal articles with 7,5,4,2 citations, a museum exhibit, and some un-cited works), and has a h-index of 5. Subject does not hold a significant academic appointment - he's basically been a mid-life PHD student, post doc, and fellow post doc fellowship positions. He is occasionally interviewed as a Holocaust expert, usually mentioning he is the author of Secret City. Little WP:INDEPTH coverage of the subject himself (as opposed to his expert opinion or Secret City) exists, though there is some coverage of a libel lawsuit he filed against Slavic Review in relation to a book review of Secret City. In terms of coverage not related to the book, there is this - A failed probation, 1999. To summarize - the subject does not meet the SNGs, does meet GNG, and is mainly discussed with his one notable work which has an article. Icewhiz (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC) clarify fellow to post doc fellowship positions.Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this ridiculous AfD nom borders on a BLP violation (" he's basically been a mid-life PHD student, post doc, and fellow"). Director of the Stanley Burton Centre for Holocaust Studies. Described as an expert in Holocaust studies by Times of Israel. Senior Historian in the Holocaust Exhibition Project Office at the Imperial War Museum in London. Pearl Resnick fellow at the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. Lecturer at Oxford. Does that sound like a "mid-life PHD student, post doc, and fellow"??? I mean, yeah, it's true he was those things but, since pretty much any academic in this area goes through these stages, but this way of presenting the subject is grossly disingenuous. The nominator basically has a problem with what the subject has written and this is just petty Wikipedia style revenge. Similar BLP vios by Icewhiz can be observed on other BLPs of historians and academics who don't happen to agree with Icewhiz's POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Subject (born 1946) began his PHD in the 1990s, and held a number of positions at the post-doc level (including the 7 month Pearl Resnick postdoc fellowship [1], which is not an indication of notability), as well as some untenured lecturing roles. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid !vote, this subject is not even close to any of the NPROF criteria, AUTHOR, or GNG. The single notable book is, and does have an article.Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw 1940-1945. The book is clearly notable, but the author's notability stems principally from the book. I considered a Weak keep but I'm not sure there's enough to justify a stand alone article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I made a page on the Barbara Engelking book, Holocaust and Memory (2001) that was edited by Gunnar S. Paulsson. I am not sure if or how being the editor of this may add to his WP notability.Thsmi002 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  He is the editor of the translation to English (there is also a translator) - the author is listed as Engelking, and Paulsson AFAICT had nothing to do with the Polish 1996 original.Icewhiz (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm reading Icewhiz arguments and still don't quite understand why this acclaimed historian is not notable? Also why 11 years old page [2] with an average view of 183 per month [3] should be all of a sudden deleted? I disagree, definitely a keeper for me. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  A very stubby article for 10 years, most of the text CV-like and devoted to listing a rather encompassing publication list. I was intending, prior to creation (copying of content + expansion) of Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw 1940-1945 to file a requeted move for this article to the book, but the creation (and copying of content) of the book article made the non-notable author article redundant.Icewhiz (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Jonathan A Jones's suggestion. I understand the rationale for this vote, and indeed if one trims down the lists (bibliography and awards) and the we're left with just two paragraphs and a lead, and one of these paragraphs is a sub-article of Secret City. That being said, we have more than a handful of articles of this length (a couple of paragraphs and a list), so it seems the question is less about this particular author and more about the nature of this encyclopedia, and I would consider raising it in a wider forum. As an aside - one good book can be more than enough to make an author notable, but it has to be a really notable book or an author with a really interesting life story. François Robere (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Note - all 3 awards are for the book (the 1998 Fraenkel Prize is for the unpublished manuscript (which was the PHD dissertation) which was later published as the book).Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I'll just copy what I posted on the nom's page a few days ago: "I have more citations than him, lol ([4] - and you are right, he clearly self-describes himself as Steve, omitting Gunnar from his GSCholar profile entirely) but his book is reasonably famous in the field. His research is also discussed in books ([5], [6] - note we need two searches, one for Steve, one for Gunnar, with Gunnar being more popular, and total = 2k hits, that's pretty good). He is called an "an expert on the [Holocaust] period" by Times of Israel: [7], presumably reliable newspaper." So a bit borderline, but I think he meets WP:PROF, as an author of an influential and well cited work (if only one work). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.A notable historian that has been published and debated in mainstream sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards keep -- The author of a book that wins two awards is likely to be notable. He has also done work on the Jews in Denmark, which also tends to notability, as indicated by it being republished in a collection of articles, which will not fit into the article on the book. His list of publications is still fairly short, but I think he has enough to keep. The alternative might be to reverse merge - book into author. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Peterkingiron:, he is 71 and his last article authored was in 2010 (and that after long gap, most of his output is 1995-2005) - additional works are not very likely. Try finding INDEPTH sources on him - I came up short with the exception of the libel case which is connected to the book.Icewhiz (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously arguing that people should be considered non-notable because of their age??? Add that to the list of problematic generalizations and views you hold about entire groups of people.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - plenty of good sources in article and per google search. Per WP:GNG as well.BabbaQ (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and sanction the nom for WP:POINTy-ness and behaving like a bull in a china shop in an area covered by multiple sanctions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment' -- I thought hard about this one. These holocaust subjects are always sensitive. I am never sure how useful it is to have articles on books. Hence my suggestion of merging the book to the author. I am far from sure that we need both articles, but we probably ought to have one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seems notable to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 15 June 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.