Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wetzel (historian) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

David Wetzel (historian)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This historian does not appear to meet WP:PROF. The only additional external coverage that I was able to find, an article in the Daily Californian that I have now added to the article, agrees with his faculty page in describing him as a lecturer, and although he has published several books and is apparently a popular instructor, I can't find evidence of notability. I raised the issue on the talk page of User:Dwetzel30, who appears to be David Wetzel, and they haven't added any new references to demonstrate notability. The article has a somewhat complicated history; it was created by User:Thewisehistorian, who has an early version as their user page, it's been moved several times (I just reverted the latest move, to David Wetzel (UC Berkeley), and there is also Draft:David Wetzel (historian), which was originally created by Dwetzel30 in their sandbox. Thewisehistorian's user page version also has this at the Daily Californian, which I will add to the article. But I don't consider the two Daily Californian articles sufficient for general notability and am unable to find more. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment David has contacted OTRS here, where he has been asking for help with the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't hope to top self-promotion on Wikepedia. You can force, say, legislative aides to promote the boss from an off-site computer, or block ingenuous chaps like Wetzel, and impecunious ones, but you can't stop folks rich enough or clever enough to hire an experienced publicist to put up or clean up a page.  All you can really hope to do is maintain standards.  the question becomes does he pass AUTHOR or ACADEMIC, not Did he write his own article?E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I see Wetzel as being located halfway between ACADEMIC and AUTHOR in terms of qualifying for Notability. His books get reviewed in general circulation publications (Times Higher Education). And that's what makes an AUTHOR notable.   But they also get cited a lot and seem to be driving scholarly arguments about the impact of the Franco-Prussian war.  And that's what makes an ACADEMIC notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup if there are COI issues. His major books have serious reviews, some of which I've added to the article. See, e.g.,, and . 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC) I don't pretend to know what's going on with the editing at the article, but if anyone has JSTOR and/or Sage access, here's two more reviews: Journal of Modern History, War In History. And a Publishers Weekly review, for what it's worth. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. This self-promotional nonsense has to end. By the way, Professor Wetzel, is your Wikipedian-in-Residence. Ask him for help.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It is common for lecturers at schools like UCB to have high student ratings — after all they are hired purely for their lecturing ability. That is all the "Princeton Review" listing means, and it doesn't appear to involve in-depth coverage of the subject nor meet the "affecting a substantial number of academic institutions" clause of WP:PROF (which is more intended to mean: wrote a widely-used textbook). And as he is a lecturer rather than a tenure-track faculty member with research responsibilities, I wouldn't expect him to be particularly prominent in research. So the fact that he has multiple scholarly books published is unusual, but does not by itself make him notable. On the other hand, worldcat shows good library holdings of several of his books, and we've argued in past AfDs that that should be enough for WP:PROF. And it's possible to find multiple reliably-published reviews of his books (e.g. , enough to make an argument for WP:AUTHOR. It doesn't make sense to ask for high citation counts or h-indexes for this area, so that may be the best we have to go on. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep clicked into the Modern History review linked above. (didn't check out any of the others) Sounds like the 2014 book effectively revises historical understanding of the diplomatic negotiations at the end of the Franco-Prussian war, revising, in turn, assumptions about causes of WW1.  That's significant.  There is no doubt that this dude is notable as an historian. He should spend a little time figuring out how to build himself a decent Wikipedia page is all.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Diplomatic history tends to be tedious to read, but it is an important element of historical writing. I have not read his books, but they appear deal with the background of two major 19th century wars.  The fact that Franco-Prussian book has been gone into a seconmd edition (with a changed subtitle) again points to its significance.
 * 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.