Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2015 March

The template contains three objection to which I would like to respond.

OBJECTION 1:   “The article is written like an advertisement.”

RESPONSE:      Really??? The only thing I say that is self-promotional is my designation, in April 2012, by The Princeton Review as one of the nations best 300 professors. I consider this an honor worthy of inclusion of an article of this kind. More on this in a minute.

OBJECTION 2:  "The article is an orphan." RESPONSE:     A dead dog. An editor contacted about this on 2/26, and the issue was resolved. There are links now to Wikipedia pages on the German magazine DAMALS, to the Crimean War, to the Franco-Prussian War, and to UC Berkeley.

OBJECTION 3: The notability issue.

RESPONSE:    Three things to point out. The PROD editor mentions only two Daily Cal articles. But what about ''The Princeton Review? What about DAMALS? What aboutThe American Historical Review?

a. Mention has just been made that  The Princeton Review named me as one of the best 300 professors in the country. If that’s not an honor, I don’t know what is. How many professors are there in the United States? 'PR'' says 1,500,00 (19)--indisputable evidence that the impact my lectures on my students and the broader to which they are addressed (the lectures are podcast) is a lasting and undeniable one. Not notable?

b. The DAMALS article. The magazine has, according to Wikipedia’s own entry has a quarterly circulation of over 30,000 (per 2009 stats); their 2011 invitation letter fixed the number at 40. No matter Being asked to write an article on Bismarck for a publication, (a German one no less!), is again, an indisputable honor. How many historians of Bismarck are there? Rough calculation: 300. Not notable?

c. A Duel of Nations, my last book. Matthias Schulz, perhaps the leading historian of the period who teaches at the University of Geneva, described my work in the American Historical Review as a major achievement [one] that fills an important gap in the literature which has not seen such a lucid and well composed case study.....in many years." Not strong praise? Not notable?  Not evidence that the book has had an impact on a wide audience beyond the narrow circle of historians.

Please! Do not delete this article

DW