Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emanuel Pastreich (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.  MBisanz  talk 00:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Emanuel Pastreich
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was deleted a year ago at AfD. Recently recreated by a WP:COI editor. Still the same situation though - does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. The only new additions are two articles that mention the name. The first, appears to be a promotional piece about a book launch and the second is an interview. This does not appear to amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. It still appears WP:TOOSOON, and the self-promotional nature of the article recreation does not help. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In case anyone is wondering, no, the current version isn't similar enough to the deleted version to be a speedy. The editor who created this also created an article about Pastreich's father, Peter Pastreich, which doesn't look adequately cited, either.  Morwen - Talk 00:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am the creator of his bio. He is significant in Korea.  I do not quite understand why parts of his page were furiously deleted.  It took me a long time to research this person, and if there are parts that appear promotional, we can remove that, but as stated by another user, his standard meets WP:ACADEMIC.  Per the comment about his father, I did not write his father's bio (don't know anything about that).  When I was writing his page, I was comparing Brian_Toon, John Heilbron, and the books and article & essays section of Steven Pinker.  I also started work on The Asia Institute, which, oddly, was deleted and redirected to a university more than two hours away with no bearing on The Asia Institute, but this is a separate matter.  What is the next logical step about the Pastreich article? Snowfalcon cu (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant the original creator of the page. It seems more likely would meet WP:GNG if Korean-language sources were included.  Presumably he's done lots of interviews and been the subject of other articles that have not been translated into English and put on the web - if we can cite those that would be good.  Morwen - Talk 10:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Morwen, I think that is a good idea. He is definitely significant here, and I think I can get to work on sifting through Korean language articles about him.  Actually, there were articles, but another user yesterday pulled them all down, and now it is hard for me to rifle through to those.  Will re-start and sniff around in both languages. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To extend on that, for example, I just stumbled on a November 3, 2012 video that he is on discussing North Korea, on YTN. I think context is very important here, which I would put to the consensus committee. He is significant, it appears. YTN News Pastreich segment North Korea.Snowfalcon cu (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * When I input his Hangeul name in Naver (Korea's "Google"), he fills the entire page. Naver.com result of "임마누엘 페스트라이쉬" as of 2012.11.5. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear users, two days ago I sent an email directly to the professor so as to resolve this matter, explained to him that he has a Wiki article that is presently being contested by user ConcernedVancouverite and he responded this morning thus. Worth taking into consideration. There are many respects in which Pastreich is a well known figure who deserves notation in Wikipedia. The question of any possible bias in the presentation is completely unrelated [his emph.] to his significance.

To start with educated at Yale and Harvard in East Asian studies, Pastreich is one of a very small number of Americans with an advanced degree from a Japanese university, University of Tokyo, in which he conducted all courses and wrote an MA thesis, in the Japanese language. He has a high level of proficiency in Chinese, Japanese and Korean and is unique among American academics in giving academic talks and writing papers in all three languages in addition to his work in English. A professor of Japanese studies who wrote a book on Japanese and Chinese comparative literature that has won a prize in Korea, Pastreich also published a collection of translations of Korean novels. Both books were from Seoul National University Press and well received. Moreover, Pastreich played a significant role in public diplomacy in Washington D.C., from 2005-2007, something extremely unusual for someone who had a background in classical Asian studies and significant publications in literature. Pastreich worked as a consultant within the Korean embassy to the Korean ambassador and ran the think tank KORUS HOUse in the Korean cultural center for two years. At the same time, he was editor-in-chief of Dynamic Korea, a newspaper produced by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This role was quite significant in terms of Korean diplomacy during that period and unprecedented to appoint a non Korean. In Korea, Pastreich was an official advisor on international exchanges for numerous local governments, again a rather unusual assignment for an academic, and conducted his work entirely in Korean to the great appreciation of the Koreans. He was given following assignments for advisor to the governor of Chungnam Province, mayor of Daejeon City, president of the Daedeok Research Cluster and mayor of  Gwangju City. These consulting positions can be documented. He may be the only foreigner to have so many appointments. Moreover Pastreich has written extensively on science policy, much of which can be documented through articles he has published, both media and scholarly journals, and also a series of research projects with Korea Research Institute for Bioscience and Biotechnology, Korea Institute for Nuclear Safety, Korea Research Institute for Standards and Science, Korean Research institute for Geosciences and Materials, Seoul National University and the Korean Women in Science Engineering and Technology Center. Pastreich also writes in Korean for a variety of Korean journals as a often-cited well known figure in Korea. He was the only foreign ever to serve for two terms as a columnist to for MK Business News (Korea’s leading business journal) and has also been columnist for Munhwa Ilbo Newspaper and Hankyung Newspaper. Pastreich has a variety of well-known publications in literature on China, Japan and Korea, on international relations, on science policy and on many other issues in contemporary culture. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is nice that he thinks so highly of himself. We need reliable independent sources to back any clams of notability.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I told him. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - To summarize the current AfD we have the following information: 1)  Article was previously deleted at AfD.  2)  Article was recreated by a self-declared non-neutral editor.  3) The debate is if any new information has come to light in reliable sources that satisfy either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG.  4)  The bulk of the new citations added to the article are self-citations to the article's subject.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

 *Delete. Still no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Citation counts are too low for #C1 — probably this is a field that's not well represented in Google scholar, so this may not mean much about how well received his work is academically, but it does mean we have no evidence. And what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Striking David's !vote here since he seems to have changed his opinion below (is this okay, David?) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)  Yes, thanks. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete largely unreferenced claims, no evidence to meet WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Clear Keep Four Harvard journal publications, directs a public policy think tank (I believe there are only five in Korea), and is an active scholar -- here is a link to his recent 2012 talk at Yale, and here is one delivered at Princeton (2012). He is shown here on television being interviewed about the Chinese Japanese island conflict on a major network (click and start at half-way), and when I type his name into Naver, he fills up the entire page.  He also has numerous columns in Korean papers, at which a previous user keeps erasing.  The reason why this page is ill-defined at present is because I am literally the only one working on it.  When I told him in an email that several of us are discussing how "significant" he is, he (I imagine) rolled his eyes and stopped responding.  He forwarded me to his postgraduate assistant, who has not responded much either (perhaps due to same).  His papers are out there, as are his videos.  He is most definitely as significant in Korea as he is in East Asian civilization work.  He deserves to have visibility increased in this sphere of influence. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * * the Yale colloquium does not forward -- in that link just click on Current Year and see WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2012 4:00 PM EAST ASIA COLLOQUIUM SERIES Snowfalcon cu (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * * Pastreich was interviewed on Arirang television, Korea's biggest network for foreigners. Starts at 3:28 and ends at 9:02.  All conducted in English. http://www.arirang.co.kr/Player/News_Vod_Full.asp?HL=H&code=News&vSeq=66676  Emanuel Pastreich of Kyung Hee interviewed about recent book. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * * Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 2011 September; 84(3): 237–242.; Pastreich is mentioned four times on work directly related to his Wiki article.  Snowfalcon cu (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * * I came across yet another video. Here he is interviewed about his work, research, and public outreach, on KBS News.  I watched the first six minutes.'' http://world.kbs.co.kr/english/program/program_seoulreport_detail.htm?No=4217 Snowfalcon cu (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I still don't see evidence that he passes WP:PROF, but I think the Korea Herald and Korea IT Times pieces (both reliable, in-depth, and not considered in the previous AfD) give him a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please note that the Korea IT Times piece is a description of him because of his column at the Korea IT Times - which makes the independence of such a promotional interview piece questionable. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I found two very recent articles, one of which is by the Munhwa Ilbo (November 2012) entitled "한국, 춘추전국 周 닮아… 주변국에 ‘영감’ 주는 나라 될 것", and the other is by Naver News (November 2012) entitled "제1회 ISF 포럼, 기조연설하는 이만열 교수". At this point I think the content I am digging up about him is slanting towards incontestable. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Per David Eppstein, GNG.John Z (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Asian newspapers and TV networks generally like giving time and space to Westerners living or working in their midst, not necessarily because they are notable back home. 'Professor' in many Asian countries often has a different connotation. I also think there is a strong whiff of self-promotion on his own website, to which some of the citations/references are linked.--Zananiri (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment In Asia foreigners often insinuate they are professors when in fact they are hired on as full-time instructors (전임강사, jeon'im gangsa). Korea Times lists him as an associate professor (부교수, bu gyosu), putting him on the tenure-line.  Because he publishes editorial columns, books, research articles, gives talks at colloquia, and supervises at least one student, I doubt he is simply a full-time lecturer at the Humanitas College; at least assistant professor.  I will dig around to see what the Humanities College page says about it.  Source: http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/20334/professor-emanuel-pastreich-holds-interview-dr-richard-bush-koreas-economic-political-an Snowfalcon cu (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per references in Korea Herald/IT Times and interviews, but mainly from invited lectures at Yale/Princeton etc. We have a field that is not highly represented online, so one way of inferring notability in the absence of reading through comments on his work in paper journals is looking at his demand on the academic lecture circuit. Generally speaking, humanists who are invited to the top school's guest lecture series tend to be pretty important. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pretty important or notable guest speakers at Ivy League schools seldom, if ever. write about themselves in the third person, as he does in his blogs on his website. Speaks volumes, I think.--Zananiri (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment You wrote seldom, but not never. Thus, this behavior is permissible.  Besides, Steven Pinker writes in third person on his very own website, stevenpinker.com. I don't think we should wipe out his article just because his writes in third-person commemorating prose.  Snowfalcon cu (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Permissible would be the appropriate term if we were comparing like with like. Pastreich is not even in the same league as Steven Pinker, an internationally acclaimed Harvard professor, whom Time magazine named one of the 100  most influential scientists in the world  in 2004. And Kyung Hee University in Seoul, Korea is hardly in the same league as Harvard.


 * I did say guest speakers so I will say it again: So-called pretty important guest speakers at Harvard or any other top school are in a different league altogether, compared to professors such as Steven Pinker, whom you have mentioned, especially if one cannot even readily establish the professional status in academia of a guest speaker. In a previous post on this Afd you stated, you told Pastreich what ConcernedVancouverite had said about him. Since you seem to be in touch with Pastreich, why not  ask him directly about his previous professional academic posts and about his current official title given to him by his present employers, though this is what his official website says, as you say you have not seen it (always bearing in mind what I said before about 'professors' and their titles in Asia):


 * Emanuel Pastreich is a critic of literature, technology policy and international relations currently professor at Kyung Hee University in Seoul, Korea.


 * I am surprised you were not curious or interested enough to look it up yourself, considering the time you have spent trying to promote the importance and notability of this man.To me, that, too, speaks volumes. I won't be commenting again on this AfD.--Zananiri (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not mean to offend, but my interpretation of what you wrote is thus. If you are a Harvard professor, you may write in third person; but, if you are not, well, then, it speaks volumes.... As to being in contact with him -- like I mentioned above, he stopped responding when I told him we were discussing how "significant" he is (my mistake).  I am on my own in sniffing around in both languages and in writing his article.  Thanks for the responses. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment:  I am not in the least offended. I was not going to comment again, but you have, indeed, misinterpreted my remark about what is permissible. Anything which looks pretentious or like an  affectation in such cases, is, to my way of thinking, best avoided.  Actually, Steven Pinker does not do what you have implied. He  only describes himself on his home page in the third person, for the benefit of those just passing through, but he writes about his activities and research in the first person. To anyone, who is familiar with his line of work, it may be wasy to follow his line of thinking on this matter. Your man, on the other hand, does it completely differently. Have a look look at his blogs. You may find it reasonable and acceptable or permissible. I certainly have not come across anything of this sort from a recognised important or notable person in academia. I hope you understand what I have been getting at! Or, to put it unambiguously: notable people should not have to advertise themselves in this manner. Steven Pinker, whom you mentioned as your example, does not do so. Absoluely nothing to do with Harvard or any other school anywhere in the world. --Zananiri (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * weak keep probably notable, given the Korean language references--but his "professorship" at University of Illinois at Champaign turns out to be an assistant professorship, probably more an indication of PR writing or naivety in the ed. here than deceit. I note that David E, who is generally a little more restrictive than I on academic bios, also said weak keep.  DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I do not wish to call it 'deceit' either, but I feel, one would and should expect more care and vigilance from someone who constantly writes about himself in the third person in his blogs on his official website--Zananiri (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know what he exactly puts on his site, but I was the one who put a professor, stressing the article a because I wanted it to sound categorical.  If the consensus here prefers I put assistant professor, that is fine, but then I would need to research what his exact positions were at Georgetown and SolBridge University. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To me, "professor" without qualification means full professor, so we should either get the title right or (in cases where we don't know) say something more vague like "on the faculty of..." —David Eppstein (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Mainly b/c he seems to have acquired some local notability in South Korea in the press there. His citation record and academic work are unimpressive by American standards, particularly for somebody of his seniority (associate professor at close to 50, some 14 years out from the PhD). Giving a talk at a first-tier school (as opposed to giving a named invited lecture series, which is very different) is nowhere close to grounds for notability. Ray  Talk 21:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to closer It appears that a relisting failed, resulting in the discussion not being in a nomination log. I have Added it to todays log. Monty  845  20:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep?  Question mark is because I did a fast, not in-depth review. The combination of that he is an author of 4 real books, has some stature as a academic, and has held many noteworthy  or semi-noteworthy.    Also, I have to note policy issues with some of the "delete" comments. Some are claiming that he is not considered notable in the real world.  That is NOT the criteria; if it was we'd delete 3/4 of Wikipedia's articles.   Meeting wp:notability IS the criteria, which is basically suitable coverage in sources.  Second, while there is some vagueness in the exact structural interaction between SNG's and wp:notability, the triple construction here (of asserting that 1. The academic SNG is the applicable one and 2.Fails that SNG  3.   Failing SNG means that meeting GNG is not enough.) is too much of a reach / not correct.  North8000 (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the response. I will take a look at that today.  Snowfalcon cu (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Seems to me to be a noted public policy contributer/academic in ROK. This little article in Asia Times Online seems useful: Arvind, Subadra (2012) A new kind of scholar breaks ground in Korea, Asia Times Online, Dec 1 This includes,as well as biographical details, the following:  Pastreich is employed as a professor at Kyung Hee University and is the founder of The Asia Institute, a think tank based in Seoul. In his best-selling book, Scholars of the World Speak out about Korea, he interviewed leading intellectuals like Francis Fukuyama, Larry Wilkerson and Noam Chomsky. I think this might help make a case for The Asia Institute also being notable. I think Asia Times Online is OK as a source - is it? (Msrasnw (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC))
 * Comment Yes, it is. But, I found the Asia Times Online article just a few days ago&#8212;no comment above yours reflects that awareness.  I think consensus would have a different mixing ratio had I found it sooner.  Thanks.  Snowfalcon cu (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

— US Academia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep: I think the subjcet is notable. The main peoblem is lack of enough reliable sources. If we add more foreign sources with a summary translation, he will pass the requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by US Academia (talk • contribs) 21:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This morning I see that he was recently on TBS eFM (Seoul) on the segment InsideOut. Note this is just nine days old.  I did not listen to both parts in total, but the host and he discuss issues relevant to this consensus in the first part.  His research, books, and institute are mentioned.  TBS eFM part 1 -- http://insideout.iblug.com/index.jsp?cn=FP1330677N0032486; TBS eFM part 2 -- http://insideout.iblug.com/index.jsp?cn=FP1330677N0032488 .  Snowfalcon cu (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.