Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bettina Renz

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. The majority of participants disagree with the nominator's position on this article subject. They are primarily Weak Keeps but they are still Keeps so that is the consensus I see here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina Renz

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

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

All references cited are not independent of the subject. They are either published by the subject as part of self-PR or a basic academic user profile. None of which are significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. Multi7001 (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 01:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ironically here its a good example. All of these things are fairly common from working on government powered projects to accomplishing a PHD. Good find @Multi7001

Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is the author of a book that gets many independent reviews (see
WP:NAUTHOR

She is an expert, quoted many times, with some examples following:

And most clearly, she is a "disginguished professor", which meets criterion 5 of

WP:NACADEMIC CT55555(talk) 13:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

And a quick note on using academic institutions as sources. Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details. from

WP:NACADEMIC (bold emphasis mine) CT55555(talk) 14:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Being consulted as an expert makes you notable for the record? I ask because as an expert in some fields I thought I would not fit notability as I am just quoted on the TV or radio Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk)

Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should stay away from the topic of your personal notability in this discussion. CT55555(talk) 14:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, in case anyone is interested in how being quoted as an expert in media applies to this discussion, please see the notes at

WP:NPROF where you will read: ...the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area.. CT55555(talk) 14:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep she's frequently quoted as an expert and Russia's Military Revival is notable as a book with all the reviews. --Mvqr (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with AUTHOR based on the reviews above. The Air University seems iffy, the other two, ok. The war college press, not sure if being a member of the editorial board qualifies for ACADEMIC. Oaktree b (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The proposed page for deletion has been updated with numerous new references. The following is a rundown of all of them.
1. [1] Only a trivial mention and no significant coverage of the subject itself.
2. [2] Only a trivial mention and no significant coverage of the subject itself.
3. [3] A user profile.
4. [4] A user profile.
5. [5] A review that establishes some notability for a book but not a person.
6. [6] An online listing only. Notability is not inherited.
7. [7] Self-PR and not independent as a source.
8. [8] This source covers her book to a large extent, but no significant coverage of the individual subject.
9. [9] Self-PR and promotional.
10. [10] No significant coverage.
11. [11] A trivial mention. No significant coverage of the subject.
12. [12] A trivial mention. No significant coverage of the subject.
13. [13] The Azure Forum is not a reliable source.
14. [14] Self-published PR.
15. [15] A user-generated profile.
16. [16] The subject is not the main topic of the story. No significant coverage. Furthermore, the reliability of ukandeu.ac.uk is questionable.
17. [17] A user profile.
18. [18] An excellent, reliable source with significant coverage. However, this establishes notability for the book, not the person.

User profiles are only used to validate biographical info and not notability. Also, trivial mentions that do not stick to Bettina Renz—the subject—do not establish notability. Only one of the references cited provides significant coverage of the book but not the subject itself. There might be grounds to have a page for the book, but not for the person, unless there are multiple reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the person and not a specific material. Multi7001 (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I disagree with this.

WP:BASIC details how If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability but I think my earlier point that she's notable based on the book and being widely quoted are legitimate reasons to vote "keep" even in the context of sources not individually giving substantial coverage. CT55555(talk) 04:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree she passes notability, and the reviews of Russia's Military Revival definitely make the book notable. If we had an article on the book there may have been a point in discussing whether to have both the author bio and the book article, but it's pointless when there is just one of the two. --Mvqr (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nearly all of the independent sources that provide some coverage are merely descriptions of the book and not of the person's history, awards, honors, or achievements. In my opinion, this should be moved to a page of the book if there aren't multiple independent sources that demonstrate its notability. Currently, only one of the references is good, but that only demonstrates the notability of the book.

Please note, "significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. "Significant coverage" is more than a trivial mention. The references you assume provide depth of coverage only address an Eastern war and not the person's assumed notability. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Multi7001 (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A semester-long "distinguished visiting professor" position is not the kind of position to which
the academic notability guideline refers. The latter are academic ranks above full professor to which a scholar is elevated in recognition of a highly accomplished career. XOR'easter (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Neutral. I'm hesitating between "weak delete" and "weak keep"... I'm not convinced that the book reviews are in important enough publications to meet NAUTHOR. And while being a "distinguished visiting professor" indicates that some people think she is somebody, it's not really the kind of position satisfying NACADEMIC#5. Her citation record is borderline (1100 citations, h-index of 14, 3articles >100). Perhaps a case of
WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

keep. Based on independent reviews of her multiple books, she should pass NAUTHOR. Also her academic profile [19] is actually quite accomplished for her field, three books with 100+ citations seems like a strong showing to me, which at least partially or fully reaches the requirements of NPROF. --hroest 03:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A reminder that what matters is what sources
WP:NAUTHOR when also combined with citation counts. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep. There are plenty of reviews for one book, but for
WP:PROF#C1 push me from weak delete to weak keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: I agree with your take on the book reviews. However, I wouldn't necessarily regard the citation record as strong. It does indicate some importance for the subject, though. But there should be more than just a modest citation count. Multi7001 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2023 (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.