Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing

• 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

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
  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
  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.

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: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]

Fact check: it has only been mentioned in one scholarly source. --Nug (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It would <deleted> 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]

• Comment -- this appears to be a
  pointy
  vote, given the editor's concerns & solicitation of opinions about my editing in the past, such as:

• Copyright violations, describing my editing as "sabotage"
• Misplaced editorial zeal: [K.e.coffman's editing] "has already p*ssed a couple of the researchers off enough into their leaving and I am getting to that level as well"
• Contrary editors: "I just wish we can find a way to muzzle him and stop his arbitrary vandalism" Etc.

The related articles came to my attention both due to their use of unreliable sources, such as a fan site http://www.luftwaffe.cz/ (see Talk:Günther Seeger#Recent edit), and copyvio content (see Potential copyvio). The editor had been warned of copyright violations in the past so this must not have come as a surprise.

Most recently, the topic of web sources on Luftwaffe pilots was discussed at RSN (Luftwaffe pilots web resources), where the editor received the same response as they did from me (and another editor) almost two months ago (Luftwaffe pilots).

I believe that this vote should be further discounted by the closer, as the poster has not demonstrated sufficient understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in related matters. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  should be about the article, not the person who created them. Joe Roe (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Done, FWIW. Tho I stand by my view that the editing history alludes to article-bias Philby NZ (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that K.e.coffman has already started deleting cites as "unreliable" due to the publisher, I'd say your original comment would fall under
  WP:SPADE. --Nug (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Agree with Nug. To create an article on a small publisher of niche militaria based mainly on a source critical of just such niche militaria while simultaneously removing citations of works from this very publisher as "unreliable" is what seems
  pointy to me. Srnec (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Is it being suggested that Like a Cliff in the Ocean by Karl Ullrich is a reliable source? I'd also add that my edit summary was not about the publisher but about "Unreliably cited intricate detail". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information to a point that it needs to cite that regiments were redesignated several times to a source such as Ulrich. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For a Wehrmacht regiment's structure and name? Yes, for that I think Ullrich is acceptable. Srnec (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The company has received reasonably detailed coverage in a scholarly book, and some coverage in other sources so notability is established (especially if the lax standards which apply for the notability of the books its published are factored in per
  WP:BK). It's a reasonably prolific press, so there's likely to be more sourcing than is currently used through elements of book reviews and the like (that said, searches in Google News and JSTOR didn't return any useful results). The article strikes me as reasonably well balanced in its current state, and while it can certainly be improved it doesn't qualify for WP:TNT. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Are we reading the same book? Apart from the fact that J J Fedorowicz publishes books written by German veterans, what additional coverage does this scholarly book provide that couldn't be summarised in one single sentence? "Reasonably detailed coverage" would have to be at least chapter if we are to rely on a single source. --Nug (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The coverage of this publisher in a single book, by Smelser et al, "Myth of the Eastern Front", is shallow and incidental, a handful of mentions of J J Fedorowicz as the publisher of this or that book written by some German veteran, and half a page about how
  WP:COMPANY. --Nug (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: Editor Nug and I interacted before, most recently at Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille#Marseille and Nazism. Specific to the topic at hand (Fedorowicz and its war-romancing authors), we interacted at RSN when discussing the use of Franz Kurowski, one of Fedorowicz's authors, in an article on Otto Kittel, a WWII German pilot.

In the March 2016 RSN discussion, the editor advocated retention of Kurowski, asking "Is it really that difficult to identify and exclude Kurowski's "romantic heroicization of the German army fighting to save Europe from a rapacious Communism" while keeping those details of the Wehrmacht that have been acknowledged to be accurate?" and that "to reject Kurowski completely as unreliable on the basis of [the Smelser] source is a little bit extreme". The nom agreed with Nug's overall assessment and, on a continuation thread at MilHist, described the article on Kurowski that I initiated as an "attack page". (This was the response). The participants are welcome to look at the Franz Kurowski article and decide whether it's an attack piece or an NPOV representation of the available sources.

Specific to the vote above, it does not offer sufficient argument for deletion, IMO. Company size is not included in

WP:NCOMPANY

; in fact, many companies with hundreds of employees are not notable for lack of RS coverage. This company (due to its role in the space of specialty military literature: "scores of books"; "one of the leading romancers' presses"; "to be published through Fedorowics is to have arrived"; etc) is indeed significant and notable, as evidenced by being covered by a notable, international source, plus additional sources.

This AfD is beginning to look to be more about Ronald Smelser and / or K.e.coffman than the article in question. Several of the arguments appear to be pointy, and should be discounted as not offering valid deletion rationales. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

??? I've only interacted with K.e.coffman in a handful of articles out of the hundreds that he has edited. The company size comment was in relation to

WP:COMPANY. --Nug (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

In its current form, the article is most clearly not an advertisement. I have no affiliation with JJF either. So I don't see how deletion on the

WP:PROMO grounds would apply here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

As Nug has pointed out, the creation of this article based mainly on Smelser and Davies could be construed as pointy. Does Feldgrau.net deserve an article? Because it gets more coverage in Smelser and Davies than Fedorowicz does. Srnec (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feldgrau.com could be notable. It is described in World War II on the Web: A Guide to the Very Best Sites as "the most comprehensive online resource on the history of the German military between 1919 and 1945". Combined with the extensive coverage in Smelser & Davies, I'd say it would be sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does that imply that coffman considers feldgrau.com a reliable source, or merely a notable one? It would be good to see an updated edition of that interesting book (thanks for including the link) since there has been a lot of addition (and dare I say improvement) of information on the internet in the 13 years since it was published. Not that its of consequence, myself just being an ignorant newbie writer Philby NZ (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable and notable are two different things. It is interesting, though, that K.e.coffman thinks mention World War II on the Web plus several pages in Smelser and Davies is enough for a website to garner notability. I think far too much weight is being placed on a single work (Smelser and Davies). It's a reliable source, sure, and from the looks of it very good, though I haven't read more than a few passages on GoogleBooks. But it has a narrow, specific purpose (like most academic books). Without reading the whole book and with no other sources to help back them up, it is difficult to know if Smelser and Davies' assessment ("one of the leading romancers' presses" and "to be published through Fedorowicz is to have arrived") is relevant to our notability criteria. Srnec (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fedorowicz is well known within its niche, and in the scholarly community that studies the Waffen-SS, and especially its post-war image as propagated by HIAG and others. The search for -- Waffen-SS Fedorowicz revisionism -- returns some interesting results:

• German Counterinsurgency in the Balkans: The Prinz Eugen Division by Melson, Charles D ...www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13518040701703195?src=recsys "... despite claims of apologists or revisionists. ..... (Winnipeg: J.J. Fedorowicz, 1995)" -- can't see more, but the 1995 title being referred to is most likely Otto Kumm's 1995 Prinz Eugen: The History of the 7. SS-Mountain Division from Fedorowicz
• The South African Military History Society article: "Veterans' attempts to de-stigmatise the reputation of the armed SS are dealt with by Hausser, Steiner, Meyer, Weidinger, and Grupp & Oehmsen", with the last three being Fedorowicz pubs.
• The 1994 article from Historical Methods magazine "Visiual Historical Methods", p. 170, discussing the attempts by the Waffen-SS veterans to rehabilitate its image. "Since 1950s, they have attempted to reestablish the Waffen-SS mythos (...). This work takes the form of unit histories, memoirs and combat reminiscences, all arguing that the organisation ... held duties that were purely military—above all, fighting the Russian threat." The book references are two Fedorowicz titles, Strassner on the SS Division Wiking & Lehmann on the SS Division Leibstandarte, plus Paul Hausser, which is available in German only.

What appears clear from the above is that, while JJF licensed its "lighter" fare, i.e. Kurowski, to Stackpole and others, the Waffen-SS divisional histories remain a Fedorowicz exclusive. For example, Strassner is only available through Fedorowicz or Munin-Verlag in Germany, according to Worldcat. So the company will continue to be cited in scholarly works that discuss or use these publications. Being the sole English-language source of these works adds to Fedorowicz' notability as a publisher, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is relevant to the AfD. It is tangential at the very best reading of it (someone mentioned a book that was published by this company). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Appearance in GBooks is liable to depend on copyright issues. I note that a number of their authors have WP articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INHERITORG: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it". --Nug (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Not quite -- a publisher exercises editorial control on what they choose to publish; so authors are important here. The authors also contribute to publisher's reputation: university presses (i.e.

ABC-CLIO) produce encyclopedias; certain militaria publishers issue revisionist and apologist books (as is the case with Fedorowicz), picture albums for modeling enthusiasts and other specialty publications; etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Seriously? So Fedorowicz only selects those German veterans that want to write revisionist and apologist books, and if a veteran's draft isn't revisionist and apologist enough they will not publish it? I don't think so. Fedorowicz likely found a profitable North American niche market in translating and publishing the memoirs of German veterans, providing an unabridged perspective of their role in WW2. I seriously doubt the degree of revisionism exhibited by particular authors was a consideration of the publisher. Don't confuse the world view of some veterans with the world view of the publisher, equally the notability of the publisher does not derive from the notability of some veterans. --Nug (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. What makes a publisher notable is producing multiple notable books--for what else could they possibly be notable? NOT INHERITED means just the opposite of what is asserted above--it means that because aa publisher is notable, this does not imply that every book they publish is notable also. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are mis-interpreting

WP:INHERITORG which explicitly states: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it". In any case, none of Fedorowicz's books are sufficiently notable to have their own wikipedia articles. --Nug (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2016 (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.