Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Fasenfest

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=David Fasenfest}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=David Fasenfest}})

Not noteworthy enough to be in an encyclopedia Historyexpert2 (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:PROF 1c as the honoree of a festschrift, Interrogating the Future: Essays in Honour of David Fasenfest (Studies in Critical Social Sciences) {{ISBN|978-9004541788}}. Jahaza (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• :According to 1c again it is a very low-impact journal (in Q4) so one can argue it would not count. Historyexpert2 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::The festschrift is a book and not a journal (published in hardcover and e-book by Brill and in paperback by Haymarket), so I don't understand what you mean by "it is a very low-impact journal". Jahaza (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Also Fasenfest himself is the series editor Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::You haven't explained what you mean\ by calling it a journal. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:PROF 1c. I also note the concern expressed by User:Liz on the nominat'rs talk page. They are still far too new at less than 100 edits to be creating AfDs. Doug Weller talk 08:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. Four reasons:

:# Looks like a low-citation area, so an h-factor of 20 is fair, #C1.

:# Editor of a decent journal, #C8

:# The festschrift, which should be added

:# Lack of experience and no strong reasoning by nominator.

:Combined this lean me to keep; one or more alone would not be enough. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::How about the festschrift being a conflict of interest since he himself is the publisher Historyexpert2 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::He's not the publisher (which is Brill Publishers and Haymarket Books), he's the series editor. (He's also not the volume editor, which is two other folks.) I agree that this is something of a conflict, but a whole bunch of other folks thought that a festschrift was worthwhile as authors, editors, and publishers. Regardless, @Ldm1954 provides other good reasons to keep. Jahaza (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:HEY. Fasenfest was finally fêted with a festschrift. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NPROF#1c, the Festschrift alone should be sufficient and it is hard to argue that Brill Publishers is not reputable. --hroest 17:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.