Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hagemeister


 * 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) -- Dane 2007  talk 02:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hagemeister

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are no 3rd party RS about this person. It remains unsourced for a few years. My very best wishes (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Zerotalk 03:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete fails GNG, appears to be a vanity article BlueSalix (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * GNG is not applicable to an academic. You need to apply WP:NACADEMIC. Zerotalk 00:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please tell me where in GNG it describes what subjects it doesn't cover. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was imprecise. On the same page, just above WP:GNG it says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." (my emphasis) That box has a link to WP:NACADEMIC. So, while anyone can pass GNG and be considered notable, someone can fail GNG and still be notable according to WP:NACADEMIC. Even highly influential academics frequently have almost nothing written about them as people, hence the need for a separate guideline. Zerotalk 02:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment User Guccisamsclubs included several references in the page. However, all of them tell nothing of substance about the person/subject of the page. These publications simply make references to publications by Hagemeister. Yes, after checking in Institute for Scientific Information database, one can find 5 references to his work (Google books gives a lot more). However, having even a few hundred quotations does not really prove notability of the author. My very best wishes (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hagemeister is a highly respected historian.  Such people are notable on account of their output, not so much on account of what is written about them. We have guidelines for notability of academics that should be followed.  Of the list in that guideline, he easily satisfies #1 since every modern publication on the Protocols cites his work. It is not hard to find mentions of him in secondary sources but as befits an academic they are about his work rather than about him. (etc, etc, search and you shall find). Zerotalk 02:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To support #1 one needs some sources telling: "Michael Hagemeister made such and such significant contributions in the field". But I do not see it all. What exactly new did he found about Protocols? This is completely unclear from the links you provided above. Note that your first link is merely an announcement of a seminar, i.e. basically nothing. My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Together with Cesare G. De Michelis, he completely overturned the standard account of the history of the Protocols. Richard S. Levy, sometimes called the leading expert on antisemitism, called Hagemeister "the leading authority on this subject". You are correct that the article doesn't say that yet, but articles should be deleted only when they have no prospect of a good future, not according what they look like now.  I didn't realise there was an article on him until I saw this AfD, but now it is on my editing list. Zerotalk 03:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I made a start but it isn't finished yet and I'm out of time for today. Note that the article of Levy is largely about Hagemeister's work and strongly supports his notability. Zerotalk 06:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. The article is currently being expanded thanks to this AfD, and can be expanded further just from de: Michael Hagemeister. But it no longer meets any clear criterion for deletion: it now cites more secondary sources than the vast majority of articles on academics, at least three of which explicitly call him an "authority" and "pioneering"; it is also sufficiently clear from google scholar that his research is widely cited by scholars in the field, that's with many citations missing from google scholar because because of it's inferior coverage of foreign-language publications. So all the relevant criteria appear to have been met. Guccisamsclubs (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per, the impact of Hagemeister's work on the Protocols meets WP:PROF. Joe Roe (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the improvements by Guccisamsclubs and Zero0000. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete (as a nominator). None of sources currently on the page about him (or this discussion page) explains what exactly important contribution was made by Hagemeister. According to current version, his "research into the origins of the Protocols led him to discount the French origin and the involvement of the Russian secret police". Well, it seems that he indeed challenged (although did not actually disprove) in his book the common version about Russian secret police fabrication of the "protocols". Is that notable? In addition, the "protocols" is a narrow subject. Writing yet another book on this subject does not seem notable. Yes, this book was quoted a number of times in a positive light, but I am not convinced this proves notability of the author. His ISI citation index is actually very low. My very best wishes (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has been improved and sourced well beyond WP requirements. Challenges to sources should be made on article talk page, not used as a justification for deletion. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Article creator blanked most of the text of the article, which I have now reverted. While it could be interpreted as a request for deletion by author, it looks more like sour grapes, so I will not move for CSD G7 and instead let this AfD continue on to conclusion. Richarddev (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * did you place this comment in the correct AfD? I see no recent blanking and the creator has been blocked for over five years. Also I see no blankings of reversions in your recent contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. Levy's identification of him as the leading authority on the Protocols should be enough. Also, the identification by as a "vanity page" is problematic and unnecessarily insulting. It is true that the page was created (long ago) by a now-indefinitely-blocked editor focused on the Protocols, but there is no evidence that the creator was Hagemeister himself and some strong evidence against (in particular, the page creator self-identified as Czech in this talk page comment while Hagemeister is German). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I didn't intend to be insulting by using the term "vanity article," David Eppstein. You're correct, and I retract that comment. BlueSalix (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Being the object of this discussion, please, allow me to make the following statement: I did not create or suggest this article; I never contributed to it and will not do so in the future; all relevant information regarding my academic career, publications (not only on the Protocols), and current research project can be found on the faculty page of Bochum University. For me this is sufficient. Michael Hagemeister (no user name), 5 September 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:47:6C0F:A001:6423:5265:8CC7:A52F (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The page concerns the foremost Western authority on a thinker like Pavel Florensky, not to mention his other research achievements, and the deletion appears to have been proposed simply out of pique that Hagemeister was cited on the latter's page for a deeply informed remark one or two editors rejected out of dislike (WP:IDONTLIKEIT).Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nish, it is important to Assume Good Faith on MVBW's behalf. Based on close reading of the sources, and based on the comments above, I fully agree that the article should be kept. However, although I disagree with MVBW on the substance of his reasoning (especially now that the article has been improved significantly since MVBW orignially nominated it for deletion), it appears MVBW offered policy-based reasons when he originally suggested the article be considered for AfD. Thanks and regards, Ijon Tichy (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless of his reasons, MVBW did the article a great service. It prompted several editors to improve the article quite a bit. Having said that, I don't think MVBW should have voted "delete" after these improvements were made.Guccisamsclubs (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I voted "delete" because I found only 5 references to his publications in Science Citation Index database. Yes, I realize: this database is not the best tool to judge performance of someone in the field of humanities. However, other tools are inconclusive. For example, Google scholar gives very large number of hits to other people with the same name, and many Google books hits also do not refer to him. My very best wishes (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Improvements have been made, an important historian. I agree that if the article was not AfD'd it would likely be very poor quality now. This is the positives that can result from an AFD discussion. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 20:37, 9 September 2016 (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.