Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Per Honor et Gloria (talk | contribs) at 20:00, 4 April 2008 (→Christian Polak). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:00, 4 April 2008 by Per Honor et Gloria (talk | contribs) (→Christian Polak)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Christian Polak

Christian Polak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This appears to be a non-notable person. Jehochman 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages (Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)), Christian Polak does fulfill the notability guideline: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." PHG (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the main assertion to notability is as a scholar, WP:PROF (rather than WP:BIO, which you cited) is the operative guideline. I do not see the requirements of WP:PROF being satisfied in this case (see my comments below). If one were to assert Polak's notability as a businessman, WP:BIO would be the correct guideline to use, but I have seen very little to justify his notability as a businessman. Nsk92 (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Nsk92, if a subject meets any notability guideline at all, the subject is considered notable. WP:Notability explicitly states the general guideline is an alternative to any of the specific guidelines, and WP:BIO has similar language. WP:PROF probably should have that language, but, regardless says the same thing (second sentence, "Criteria" section), so we're entitled to shop around. Noroton (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, he doesn't seem to meet the WP:Notability standard of "substantial" (more than a little detailed) coverage of him by independent, reliable sources. WP:PROF is probably the best guideline to look at.Noroton (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:PROF is a subguideline of WP:N, so WP:PROF is not meant to override the general requirements of WP:N (which still always apply) but rather to detail them. Nsk92 (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I respond below at the 01:32 April 3 edit. Noroton (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I added in the article a sampling of books and publications which use Christian Polak as a reference for Franco-Japanese relations. Regards. PHG (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
He has also been described as "the best specialist of the history of Franco-Japanese relations" by Philippe Pons, Japan correspondent for Le Monde (2005). PHG (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete-The man certainly does not stand out. Based on Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons, only a notable person may have an article designed after him (is "designed" the proper word?). Since this man does not fulfill the criterion, I suggest we delete it. Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: a significant author and a quite well-known French specialist of Franco-Japanese relations. PHG (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability hasn't been established through coverage in independent reliable sources. User:PHG has provided this google search--the first two results listed there aren't about the person Christian Polak, but combinations of the adjectives "Christian" and "Polak". The other results don't devote substantial coverage to Polak as a subject of biographical interest; they're merely passing mentions. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. (ec) The comment from Akhilleus attempts to impeach the sources provided, but that the "first two" (and, in fact, quite a few other) results did not relate was irrelevant. The source is a GoogleBook search, and turns up books by or mentioning Christian Polak, the orientalist, One of these is a general bibliography of French publications. Many sources can't be examined in detail through Googlebooks, but one source, Photography in Japan 1853-1912, by Terry Bennett, 2006, states: "As this book was going to press, the collector and writer Christian Polak, and expert on early French -Japanese relations, passed me a copy of an article ...." It is reasonably clear that, in his field, Christian Polak is notable. That was just a Googlebook search. The source japantimes likewise mentions: "Christian Polak, an expert on Jacoulet who contributed a biography of the artist to the catalog." Given that this article was just created yesterday, and that many sources regarding Polak may be in Japanese, and could take time to develop, this AfD would be oddly precipitate. Is it a coincidence that the author of this article is involved in a current request for clarification on an ArbComm decision, with nominator Jehochman? From what has been established, notability is marginal. I'd give this article some space to breathe before squashing it beneath the jackboot of AfD.--Abd (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
No. Being mentioned does not make somebody notable. The subject needs to be written about, as a subject, not merely cited or referenced. Writing about oneself or other topics especially does not count towards notability. Again, Abd, your choice to involve yourself in PHG's business and add noise to the discussion is disruptive. Jehochman 19:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
When editors are piling on to find and complain about every deviation from the strictest interpretation of the standards of Misplaced Pages, ranging across the entire set of contributions of the editor, it becomes harassment. An arbitrator just suggested that one user involved might drop the crusade, though milder language was used as befits that body. I'm involved in Misplaced Pages. I'm not following any user around and jumping into every spat I find. Rather, this particular one (the situation with PHG) inserted itself in front of me, as a particularly egregious abuse of an ArbComm decision, and when I commented, legitimately, I was attacked. I'm allowed to state facts, and a decision that those facts are irrelevant, which is up to the closer of this AfD, does not make the statement of them disruptive in any way, unless they were clearly irrelevant, which they are not. And Jehochman just repeated his attack. "Disruptive" is grounds for block. As I wrote before about this, make my day. But, don't do it unless you desire to disrupt the project, because it would be exactly that.--Abd (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The citations provided by Abd are valid but there are too few of them to indicate that Polak has made significant impact in his scholarly field. A GoogleScholar search for him turns up almost nothing. I disagree to a point with Jehochman's logic: in scholarly articles people do not generally write about somebody else's research. They write articles containing new original research where the work of others is mentioned and/or discussed in context. So a high citation rate and a high H-index would be substatial indicators of academic notability. But that is not what we seem to have here. The total number of citations (per GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar together) seems to be rather small (maybe two dozen in total). So while he may be an expert (as are most people who got a PhD in something), there is not enough evidence to conclude that he is a significant expert in his field who made a substantial impact on that field. This tells me that he fails WP:PROF and I did not see arguments for other kinds of notability, per WP:BIO, offered here. Nsk92 (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • delete per Jehochman & Nsk92's reasoning. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment for transparency's sake, it should be noted that this AfD, the article, and the article's creator PHG (talk · contribs) are related to an ArbCom case. The result of the case was that PHG, the creator of this article and many others, has been found to be misinterpreting sources. He was banned from working on articles about medieval and ancient history, but then immediately after the case closed he created the article France-Japan relations (19th century), which has some information about the 16th century (just outside the definition of "medieval"). His major source for that article was the works of Christian Polak. When challenged about the source, PHG then created this Christian Polak article, but with few solid sources. This AfD was then filed by Jehochman (talk · contribs), the same editor who filed the ArbCom case to begin with. There is currently an open Request for amendment (filed by PHG, against me Elonka (talk · contribs)) which is being considered by the arbitrators, which mentions both articles and some other related issues. I'm not weighing in on whether or not the article should be deleted, but I did want to make it clear that there's a larger dispute here. If any editors here at the AfD would like to offer statements at the Request for amendment, please feel free. I also recommend reading the discussions at Talk:France-Japan relations (19th century), as it would be helpful to get more knowledgeable opinions there as well. Thanks, --Elonka 22:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Small point. PHG was found to have, in a few cases, out of voluminous contributions, misinterpreted sources. This was not considered serious enough, apparently to prevent him from editing in general, and the topic ban was only as Elonka stated. ArbComm specifically encouraged him to edit outside the banned topics (and within the topics through Talk, similar to a COI editor; the theory seems to be that his errors were due to his enthusiasm for what may have been original research). The article on France-Japan relations is *solidly* outside the field of "medieval" history, and that it has "some information" which is "almost" medieval doesn't change that, the focus is clearly as stated, 19th century, and does not make it even mentionable as some kind of violation, which has been done, unfortunately (not so much here, but definitely elsewhere), nor does that article -- nor this one -- seem to be promoting any novel theories or extraordinary claims. Yes, knowledgeable opinions sought, and sensible editorial review from those not involved with what was obviously a bitter content and behavioral dispute.--Abd (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Abd, please review the updates being considered to the Arb case where they clearly state they were signaling to PHG that his behavior needed changing; it is not helpful to anyone, least of all PHG, that you hamper the possibility for those changes through your misguided advocacy. You continue to misstate the breadth of the sourcing issues and the scope of the case despite several editors informing you of your errors; you continue to twist the facts to help your "cause" and advance these supposed "theories" that in truth belong only to you. Your habit of jumping from dispute to dispute to stir the pot is starting to grate. Shell 05:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weakest of keeps -- several citations of someone being called an expert is borderline, but considering he is attracting such attention outside of either of the main languages in which he is working pushes it slightly towards keep for me. Google Scholar is positively horrendous in documenting published work in the humanities. However, it should be noted against keeping that (1) JSTOR has no hits for him, and (2) some of the excerpts in the Google Books search for "Christian Polak" are not for him (they refer to a coauthored book by "Lastname, Christian/Polak, Regina") -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Just in case I also did a WebofScience search and a Scopus search that also yielded no results. I think that being called an "expert" by a few sources is not enough to signify academic notability. One needs to be considered a "significant expert" per WP:PROF which usually requires some positive evidence of having made a substantial impact in one's field, either in terms of citations or academic honors and awards. Nether seem to be present here. Nsk92 (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Please note that I excluded those hits in the list I gave above, unless I made a mistake.--Abd (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Again, wrong standards are being used. The standard for notability is coverage by multiple, independent, reliable sources. The man may be the finest of experts, respected by all, but if nobody is writing about him in reliable sources, we cannot create a proper Misplaced Pages article. Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original material. I like to write original material too, but I don't do that here. Jehochman 09:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I politely disagree -- mention of a scholar as an expert in a peer-reviewed journal or book published by a respected press is coverage by a reliable source. Note also that Web of Science has next to no information on the humanities--Here are some top names in music research: Thomas Forrest Kelly (10 records, the most cited twice! Missing all his major books and articles); Margaret Bent (30 items with the most cited 8 times? I've cited that article at least 8 times in publications myself; her C.V. lists over 150 publications) ; Christoph Wolff (finalist for the Pulitzer prize and University Professor at Harvard: 20 articles on WoS, the most cited six times?); and all the music research world is gathering this June to honor the 10th anniversary of the death of Nino Pirrotta, a man who, according to WoS was only ever cited 9 times. These numbers have no connection to the number of citations in the real world, mostly because WoS has never learned to parse footnotes in the humanities, in foreign languages, or in printed journals: the staples of citation in the humanities. So, where does one go for information on the importance of a writer in the humanities if there aren't accurate citation counts? We look for clues such as "expert" given by people who read the journals and not just count citations. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that GoogleScholar and WOS are pretty awful when it comes to humanities. And I agree that a mention of a scholar as an expert in a peer-reviewed journal or book published by a respected press is coverage by a reliable source. But one or two such mentions are not enough to indicate notability. Yes, establishing notability for academics in humanities is a difficult problem but we still have to use some kind of positive and verifiable evidence. I have a couple of thoughts on this (although, being a mathematician, I am a bit of an outsider to the world of humanities). First, it seems that GoogleBooks is a more reliable indicator of notability in humanities than GoogleScholar, WOS and Scopus. Second, I noticed that in other AfD discussions DGG often cites information about how many libraries carry books by the academic in question. I don't know where and how DGG gets this data, but it could be used, including in this case, as an indicator. I hope that DGG will participate in this discussion as well. Coming back to GoogleBooks, I did searches for the notable musicology names you mentioned. For "Thomas Forrest Kelly" there were 184 hits and for "Christoph Wolff" there were 674 . By comparison, for Christian Pollak, the total humber of hits was 28, from which at most 9 appear to be about him.
As an experiment, I did a GoogleBooks search for a few other people that I picked, more or less randomly, from the websites of the history departments of several U.S. universities (not particularly major). The first is Sarah Kovner, who is a faculty member at the University of Florida (the web site says that her PhD is 1995 and that she is an Assistant Professor; her area is listed there as "Japanese History, Gender History, and International History"). A GoogleBooks search gives 57 hits , most of which appear to be about her. Another person I checked was David Bachrach, an Assistant Professor in the history department at the University of New Hampshire. His area is listed as Medieval History. A GoogleBooks search for "David Bachrach" midieval gives 13 hits , all related to him. (Without the midieval addition one gets 154 hits, but many of them are not about him). Another example: Thomas J. Finan, Assistant Professor, history department at the University of St Louis (PhD 2001), specialization listed as Medieval History: GoogleBooks gives 38 hits, at least a half of which seem to be related to him. All three of these cases concern fairly junior researchers (Assistant Professors), and in all three cases GoogleBooks results are better than for Polak. Nsk92 (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Ignore my comments in the long thread just below. There isn't enough sourcing to meet any of our notability requirements -- neither WP:N, WP:BIO nor WP:PROF. The closest criterion this might meet is WP:PROF #1 (regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources) but Example #2 in that guideline requires that there be plenty of those sources, and we don't have that many, even though there's been plenty of searching for them. Thanks to Nsk92 for help with understanding WP:PROF. Noroton (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep {See my comment just above) I'll admit up front that I haven't read every word of this discussion (I did scan every contribution), so please feel free to excoriate me if this point has been thoroughly hashed over: WP:PROF states The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. Meeting this single criteria (or others) is enough for WP:PROF to declare the subject notable (see the paragraph just above the quote, in the "Criteria" section). Now, I see these two sources listed high up in the footnotes:
    • "The collector and writer Christian Polak, an expert on early French -Japanese relations", Photography in Japan 1853-1912 by Terry Bennett, Page 143
    • "Christian Polak, le meilleur specialiste de l'histoire des relations Franco-Japonaises", Philippe Pons, Japan correspondant for Le Monde, in "Sabre et pinceau", 2005
Forgive my bad French, but I translate that last as "the best specialist of the history of Franco-Japanese relations". Am I mistranslating? These appear to be reliable sources, therefore the criterion is met, therefore WP:PROF is satisfied, therefore he's notable, therefore keep.Noroton (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
second thoughts: The first item I cited, where Terry Bennett calls him an "expert" is not enough. WP:PROF wants "significant expert" (emphasis added). There may or may not be a second reliable source that essentially calls Polak a significant expert, but it one potential second source was added by User:PHG and, given the RFA, and given that online translators give different wording, it's too difficult to put any faith in the accuracy of the translation. I've put a note on the Talk:Christian Polak page about it. If that translation holds up, the article unquestionably meets WP:PROF. Noroton (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC) -tweaked wording (replaced "it" with a phrase) Noroton (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
These are certainly valid references, but I don't think just these two references are enough to justify that he is regarded as a significant expert in the field. In practice, when WP:PROF is applied, one needs either a substantial amount of coverage of the person in question in the mainstream press as an expert in a particular area or some substantial evidence, in the form of citations in scholarly publications and books, academic awards etc, that the person has made significant impact in the field. This is how WP:PROF has been consistently interpreted in other AfD discussions related to notability of academics. The same is true for the general applicability of WP:N and WP:BIO: having one or two references by reliable sources regarding the subject, even if they explicitly assert notability of this subject, is almost never sufficient for satisfying the notability requirements. So having just two mentions of him in the mainstream press does not, in my view, satisfy the requirements of WP:PROF in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with WP:PROF AfDs, and the past practice may well be just as you say, but I try to follow the exact language on the guideline page. At WP:PROF, Criterion #1 doesn't require any substantial coverage from those particular sources. That's true with some criteria you find in other notability guidelines, such as WP:MUSIC. Each notability guideline sets up alternate criteria to WP:N that do not rely on a substantial amount of coverage by individual sources. I find in that in AfDs there are too many different interpretations of the policies and guidelines, so the way I do it is by going with the exact wording I see on the page (and, of course, common sense). I think closing admins, when they need to interpret policies and guidelines, have to look at them the same way. Noroton (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the language of WP:PROF needs to be clarified but I am fairly sure that I am correct about how criterion 1 has been traditionally interpreted. This is supported, in part, by an example explicitly given in WP:PROF: "An academic repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines may be considered to meet criterion 1. A small number of quotations, especially in local newsmedia, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." This seems to be on the mark in this case since the number of references to Polak in traditional newsmedia is very small. I should also mention that, in my understanding, WP:PROF is a subguideline of WP:N and it is not meant to override WP:N (unless explicitly stated so) but to detail it. Nsk92 (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right about that example. I read that, but not carefully enough. I'll probably wind up voting delete. But reread the first sentence in the "Criteria" section. WP:PROF and all other notability guidelines provide alternate routes to notability that don't depend on WP:N requirements. I don't think there's any other way to interpret their explicit language on that. Noroton (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Convenience break 1

  • Keep: I'll bite. With absolutely zero experience in this field, I just added a sentence showing Polak's links to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Japan), Japanese publishing house Toshi Shuppan, and its journal with contributions from the likes of Strobe Talbott. That and the other cites seem sufficient to break the pro-Anglophone glass ceiling. Feel free to pick apart, but the presumption of notability has been met for me; Polak is "regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources" sufficiently for such a narrow field, and is "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". I'm also wondering what happened with the preferred deletion alternatives of regular editing, merging, discussion, and/or proposed deletion, in the 7 hours between article creation and this AFD. With so little time for determining notability in such a layered situation, how can one claim consensus to delete has gelled? John J. Bulten (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • John, though uninvolved opinions are often helpful, and I am trying to assume good faith, I have to question your participation here. You wouldn't by any chance be weighing in here with "zero experience", because of the long discussions that you and I were having over your behavior at the Ron Paul and Moneybomb articles, would you? I see from your contribs (John J. Bulten (talk · contribs)) that your main area of participation on Misplaced Pages is still in topics related to the U.S. Presidential election. It seems a bit odd to see you suddenly weighing in on matters so far afield, such as this AfD, and an "out of the blue" statement at ArbCom. Which doesn't mean that you can't participate, but for total transparency, it would usually be best if you identified that you were involved in a prior dispute with one of the participants. --Elonka 00:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Elonka, that is seriously out of place. An arbiter has recommended you abstract yourself from your "multiple interventions" with respect to PHG, and now you raise suspicion about an editor who actually comes up with sources for an article under AfD? I'll join that arbiter, it's time to pack it up, Elonka. As to disclosing some prior dispute, did you do that when intervening here, above?--Abd (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, I believe I did. And Abd, as I (and others) have mentioned to you before, I think it would be wise if you spent more time actually working on articles, rather than just jumping from dispute to dispute. --Elonka 04:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Thank you so much Abd! I really appreciate finding a kindred spirit on the view that AFD comments should focus on hard proof of reliable sourcing instead of side issues-- especially from other editors with "zero experience" in 19th-century Franco-Japanese relations. And I'm so glad I can step in as an editor who has recently grown beyond WP:SPA, because though I may have formerly faced unthinking attacks for choosing to edit only one topic, I can now confidently face the next level of WP instead. I think the points I made, about having many notable links, the risk of improperAnglophone bias, the meeting of the plain words of both WP:N and WP:PROF (to the point that another editor is now questioning whether WP:PROF itself should be edited for clarity), the failure to pursue deletion alternatives, and the hyper-immediatist Hobson's choice forced by this AFD ("source or delete now"), should be probative against the nonarguments of the deletionists. If anyone (especially the closer) has any questions about the topic Abd is responding to, well, ---> John J. Bulten (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • library holdings I get my data on library holdings primarily by searching WorldCat. It has limitations: it includes all US and Canadian academic libraries, most of the larger USD public libraries, many of the major academic libraries in the UK, and a few major academic and national libraries in Europe. It has to interpreted in that light--a book primarily of interest in Japan or even in both France and Japan will not usually show many copies in the US except in a few very specialized collections. That's the case here--many of dozen or so major US libraries collecting academic works on Japanese art have some of this books. there is presently no easy way of doing quite as well for other countries, except by looking in catalogs of individual libraries. There's no special art in doing the search. For the obvious sort of recent academic or general interest books, a negative or near-negative result is a pretty good indication t hat the works are not notable, but this does not necessarily apply for books like these. The comparative method of Nsk is a good way to go, except that the comparisons he gives are not really valid here, since one would expect much more for a US scholar. This applies not just to WorldCat, but to Google Scholar or Google Books also--they are in practice very much US-centric (Google Books is relatively international for all European countries for earlier works, but for recent ones it only puts them in with publishers permission, and basically only the US publishers cooperate) --I consider a low or negative result not very meaningful for someone is his specific position. He's clearly not a very major figure, but he might still be significant in his niche. All i can say as a conclusion is:

Very weak keep.. DGG (talk) 05:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As to raw standards, I agree. Frankly, though, the harm to the project by keeping this is minute, if there is any at all, and is far outweighed by the fuss created by the AfD, which was blatantly created because the nominator is involved in a conflict with the author of the article, as is another contributor here intensely arguing for deletion. (Whether or not they were originally neutral would be irrelevant; their comments here and elsewhere show some serious personal involvement.) I would never have become involved here if this were not part of a pattern of harassment of the user, intended or not.--Abd (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the ulterior motives happening beneath the surface (and they might exist for all I or anyone knows), the AfD issue here is really about whether we can research and write an encyclopedia entry based on the policy and guideline criteria. Regarding the argument that it doesn't do any harm to the project by keeping this article, here is an interesting essay that covers that issue as one of the "arguments to avoid" in deletion discussions (see WP:NOHARM):"As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes - it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here." It's a legitimate and thought-provoking point, I think. J Readings (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict, to Abd:) Thank you again. I agree that, for similar reasons, there is much more harm to WP by deleting than by retaining. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
JR, to expand on your good point, and considering my latest sources, any harm related to any less-than-verified portions of this article pales in the face of the harm that may result from setting a precedent that literally any article can be deleted for nonnotability (which is not provable) without a fair chance to show notability (which can take time to prove). As to the harm that may be engendered by either deletion or retention being misused as a demonstration of consensus in the larger personality conflict, I think that either evens out or tips in favor of retention being less harmful. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Taking your last point first, I think you're referring to the bad faith that a couple of editors are alleging against a few other editors here. In my personal opinion, it's not helpful to focus on that issue if the AfD attracts third-party editors who were not involved in any of those previous scuffles. Speaking only for myself, I'm here for the subject matter as it relates to Japan. Second, despite a common misperception, an AfD is not a vote. The closing admin is entrusted to read through the arguments as they relate to the substance of the subject in relation to the policies and guidelines. Third, in terms of that substance, I think that it's helpful to remember that we're trying to establish the notability of a biographical subject (which is possible within a 5-day AfD), not completely re-write the article within 5 days (that can come later). On the former, the six databases I mentioned (JSTOR, WorldCat, LexisNexis, Factiva, Google News, Google Books) are excellent sources of information. The general notability requirements call for independent, third-party sources that are both "reliable" and "significant" in their coverage of the subject. To quote the notability guidelines: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." The problem with Christian Polak, excluding his own books which are irrelevant for the AfD and the few one-sentence mentions in newspapers and magazines, is that there hasn't been any "significant coverage." That's the issue that needs to be addressed. If his writings are notable, where are the book reviews in reliable newspapers? Where are the academic book and journal citations? Where are the "major" write-ups in the media, more generally? As far as I can tell, having researched this gentleman over the past couple days, he hasn't experienced any of that coverage (yet). J Readings (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Search results for "Christian Polak":
Google News: zero articles.
LexisNexis: 14 articles, most of which are false positives. Only one makes a major mention of Polak in connection with his comments on the Tom Cruise movie, The Last Samurai (not a good start for writing an encyclopedia entry). The rest are one sentence mentions that don’t conform to the criteria of WP:N.
Factiva (English): five articles linking him with Japan, so as to avoid false positives. Once again, he gets one-sentence mentions in these articles, but they are not about him or his ideas. These do not really support the WP:N requirements.
Factiva (French):17 articles—obviously a slightly more substantial accumulation for Polak in the French media, but still we’re talking about single-sentence mentions within these articles.
Google Books: 28 hits, some of them are false positives. For example, “Millie Graham was a Christian, Polak a Jew, but their real religion….” Looking through the books, I found a few that do indeed mention Polak in passing, but nothing substantial to indicate that his work was being cited or taken seriously.
JSTOR: zero hits. The fact that academics have not cited Polak at all in any academic journal article that is recorded on JSTOR hurts his notability substantially.
WorldCat: only four hits. Two of which are books that Polak published Paul Jacoulet (in French) and another entitled Kinu to Hikari (in Japanese). A third and fourth book (are the same, different editions), apparently written about Honda in Spanish, mentions “Christian Polak” in the keyword search, but it could be a false positive.
— J Readings — continues after insertion below I appreciate your work. Please note the third book in WorldCat is in French and Portuguese (not Spanish), and Polak is listed as collaborator, per the Details tab. All three are now listed among the seven or eight books mentioned in the article. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems you're using a different WorldCat site (my entries were in Spanish but it's restricted access). In any case, fair enough. This one appears to be in French. J Readings (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Actually, strike. You're right. I went back and checked WorldCat again. See They're in French and Portuguese. My apologies. You're right. J Readings (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • My vote: the weakest of keeps. Christian Polak is a borderline case of notability. Based on the evidence, I wouldn't be surprised if the closing admin decided to delete the article. There's not much we can use and cite from the the independent, third-party sources to justify a good article. J Readings (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Strike my last comment. This article is really a delete, in my view. Having looked thoroughly through these six databases now, there is not enough objective material to justify the article's notability requirements which will likely lead -- sooner or later -- to a lot of primary source citations (if any) and puffery (none of which is really good for a tertiary source like Misplaced Pages.) J Readings (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
JR, I politely disagree with your idea above that 5 days to establish notability is proper in this case, because (1) no other steps were tried by the nominator in the 7 hours after creation, (2) one bio tag and one source question at talk do not constitute sufficient prior steps by others, (3) the nominator (and the questioner) were just in arbitration with the creator, and (4) the desire of these two parties to assist the new-article patroller is certainly understandable within good faith, but any good-faith explanation for this particular choice of forum is at least as weak as you think the notability is-- good faith would be more likely to wait more than 7 hours before AFD. But even so, the article seems clearly to have surpassed WP:HEY by now. (Also I don't think I'm referring to any bad-faith allegations made here, although of course the ArbCom case was documented to have many bad-faith allegations.) As for the possibility that rewriting can come later, recall your !vote and that ArbCom is considering a ban on the creator reworking deleted articles in his userspace. Since I don't think "his own books which are irrelevant" and "few one-sentence mentions" are a sufficient characterization of everything unearthed, I guess I need to make my own list:
  • Your Google news analysis looks mistaken, I found 10-12 (not 0) relevant pay articles here, 7 from Le Monde and Les Échos (which reviewed Sabre et pinceau and Honda par Honda in the face of the question "Where are the book reviews in reliable newspapers").
  • You have (say) 3-6 LN articles and at least 22 Factiva articles; single-sentence mentions add up, and surely there must be more than just one with multiple-sentence coverage. Several of the above mention The Last Samurai, not just one. Japan Times says "expert".
  • As PHG and Abd pointed out, 12 or 13 of the Google Books results are relevant. (Using JSTOR is arguing from a negative, and in a field JSTOR is weak in.) Bennett, Photography in Japan, says "expert".
  • We're up to 10 books authored or co-authored now, more than "a few".
  • That's about 40-50 total references, and he also has numerous significant linkages to notables. I would think cowriting the autobio of Honda's founder is notability almost by itself. Also, Museum director Hiroshi Ueki wrote a preface for him; he speaks at the Japanese Paris Club, the Kanagawa society, and the CCIFJ, a chamber of commerce in a serious 90-year-old union; he was published in the Gaiko Forum (not noted in the above links); and he has a few more cites and relationships in the article.

I'm not pushing for "no consensus", I'm pushing for a full "keep notable" on these grounds. WP:N: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; "sources address the subject directly in detail". WP:BIO: "subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"; "significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". WP:PROF: "regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources"; "collective body of work is significant and well-known" (it is in France); "received a notable award or honor" (no one has questioned the notability of the Légion d'honneur, though I grant it has 100,000 recipients); "academic who has published a book or books of general interest ... or non-academic articles in periodicals with significant readership is likely to be notable as an author (see WP:BIO), regardless of their academic achievements"; "academic repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines" (the wikiblur is obvious between "repeatedly" and "small number", but I think 40-50 is on the safe side); and note emphasis added in "numbers of publications can be judged quantitatively to a degree". Thanks for your attention. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: I would appreciate it if the deletionists would have anything to say about my new information in the article that Polak knew Soichiro Honda, the founder of Honda, and knew him well enough that Polak's biography of Honda (whether as collaborator, ghostwriter, or coauthor) was cited repeatedly as an authoritative source by Les Échos in its article on the 10th anniversary of Honda's death. Also comments on the suddenness of this AFD compared with the time it takes to verify notability would be nice. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC) I forgot, I also need a Francophone to judge whether this, which appears to contain a 2-page review of Polak's book in the monthly newsletter of the French Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Japan, has anything that might be used within the limits of WP:SELFPUB. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. This is the Monthly newsletter of the French Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Japan. It has a 2 pages review of Sabre et pinceau. The article describes the content of two of Polak's books, first "Soie et Lumières", which explains "how Japan's raw silk saved the silk industry of the Second Empire, in exchange of what France brought the technologies necessary to the Industrial modernization of Japan". Second, it describes in details the contents of Sabre et pinceau, as a book focusing on military and artitistic relations. In conclusion it says that "Sabre et pinceau is like a time-machine. As for the first book Soie et Lumières. Sabre et pinceau draws from first-hand original documents, gathered over a period of more than 30 years either from French, Japanese or foreign official archives, or from private archives, especially those of descendants of Frenchmen who lived in Japan, or still from new documents found among booksellers in Paris, London, New York, Kanda inn Tokyo or elsewhere, or documents purchased in auctions around the world on the occasion of personal travels, and also from Internet." Later on: "This is a true time-machine, delivering with sometimes violent strength the reality of the past.". Cheers PHG (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: Since a lot of folks here don't speak French, I can confirm what PHG said is in the article, but unfortunately it was written by the subject. Shell 16:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ooooops, sorry for that, you're right Shell. Just saw it. Thanks for the keen eye (the font is barely visible on my printer, and I missed it). I understand better now why John J. Bulten was mentionning WP:SELFPUB. I guess we'll have to remove this part from the article then. Cheers PHG (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you so much monsieur! To explain my meaning, WP:SELFPUB would tend to exclude some things from the CCIFJ's review because they are close to Polak and the claims might be controversial, such as "true time-machine" and "saved the silk industry". However, within the limits of WP:SELFPUB, basic noncontroversial claims can be gleaned, such as that the books are about the interaction and trade between Japan's silk trade and France's technology, and about the military and artistic relations of the two countries. I will add that source myself. Merci again! John J. Bulten (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC) For me, I can't tell whether it is intended that the article or the book reviewed is by Polak. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Convenience break 2

Maybe the list misses him, or PHG made up to glorify the subject in order to prevent the article from being deleted. If he forged the information, I would retract my vote and start reconsidering whether his seeming established articles have credibility.(Franco-Mongol alliance looks interesting, so I intend to translate it) However, the article looks great at this status. --Appletrees (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I ran a Google search and cannot find any reliable source that makes this claim. I do not trust PHG's obscure foreign language sources, given the results at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. Jehochman 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually the reference is written in Japanese and according to the source, he received the honor. (平成元年、フランス政府より国家功労賞（シュバリエ）受勲。平成14年、フランス政府より国家功労賞（オフィシエ）受勲) However is "the site" reliable? I'm not sure.--Appletrees (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It's interesting. I checked Factiva (French) and there was no mention made of him being granted these honors. Le Monde makes mention of a Pierre Polak being granted the Légion d'honneur in 1995, I believe, but nothing for Christian Polak in 1989. Curious. I welcome other people to double-check the results just to be sure. That said, Appletrees is correct. The Japanese does say that the French Government bestowed two national distinguished honors upon him, one being the "Shubarie" in Katakana. Whether that's the Legion d'honneur or not, I don't know. The Japanese just literally translates as "national distinguished service award." In addition, it's unclear whether the source is reliable, but that's a separate issue. Someone should doubt-check if this website is not affiliated with Christian Polak, which would definitely be a WP:SELFPUB problem. I haven't looked yet. J Readings (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
At the bottom of the page, in English, it says "Copyrighit 2004, Nekono ebook publisher All rights Reserved." The URL necom.cool.ne.jp has a Google PageRank of 3/10. My personal website is 5/10. From all appearances this is self-published information on a very minor website that has not been verified. Jehochman 19:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh, 国家功労賞 seems to be Ordre national du Mérite. シュバリエ is Chevalier (the first rank), オフィシエ is Officier (Officer, the second rank). Would somebody have access to the list of recipients of the Ordre national du Mérite? PHG (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Categories: