725:
reviews of book constitute significant coverage per GNG of the books, not the author of the book. You above suggest it would be paradoxical for the books to be notable and not the author, but this I would suggest would be the case here if 'significant coverage' were sufficient to establish notability: we do not have sufficient information published in reputable secondary sources to have an overview article on this person, since we only have accounts of the content of a couple of their books, without linking information. In any case, however, I believe that you are reading GNG as a list of sufficient rather than necessary conditions. That is, it is a necessary condition for producing an article that the topic have significant coverage, whereas the last point of GNG makes clear that while significant coverage creates a presumption of notability it does not in itself 'guarantee' inclusion, because there may be other considerations. In this case I think both WP:PROF and WP:NOT constitute established conventions by which
Knowledge does not give articles to any academic with a reviewed book.
212:– he is simply a mid-level academic in Australia. I put up a proposed deletion before, but the creator of the article removed it with the summary note that Vardoulakis has had his work reviewed which means he meets criterion 1. However, almost all academic books receive some reviews in some academic journal – hence almost all humanities academics have reviews published of their work, certainly in Australia where it is standard for even a junior academic to have a published book. If this establishes notability, then almost all professional academics would be notable. Vardoulakis is not highly cited, which is the main thing discussed at criterion 1.
405:. I'm really surprised by the above comments, which seem to set a too-high notability bar for academics. Yes, lots of humanities academics publish books which get reviewed, and yes, that means lots of academics (lots more than we have articles about) are notable. Equally, lots of bishops, professional athletes and film actors are notable. The article now cites multiple reviews for both of his monographs. This means that each of them meets the
565:. But few academics are going to have (say) newspaper articles written about their personal lives or biopics produced about their childhood. Surely, though, that's not that which we want; it's (generally) their work that makes notable academics notable, so discussion of their work is surely enough to ground notability (just as articles discussing a musician's music or a painter's exhibitions would surely be enough to ground
985:
are separate questions, but tenure is typically achieved at a lower rank, Senior
Lecturer – and it may take decades for a tenured academic to reach Associate Professor. Associate Professor in Australia is more closely equivalent to full Professor in North America than to Associate Professor there. But I would suggest that academic rank cannot establish notability in and of itself in any case.
879:
shouldn't have pages on so many minor scholars. The thrust of WP:GNG here is that we should have articles only on subjects where there is a sufficient secondary literature to actually lean on to compose a tertiary encyclopedia article about that thing. Naturally, only a small percentage of the most prominent scholars could ever have properly referenced articles written about them.
446:
multiple reviews may (or may not) be "what is expected" for an academic text with a university press, that's not, in itself, an argument that it does not constitute "significant coverage" for notability purposes. Imagine how bizarre it would sound if you said "delete- this may have received a lot of reviews, but that's what is to be expected for a James
Cameron film". Fourth, the
662:
professional community. Very few people buy and read academic journals any more. Academic journals are not magazines. If you want to compare like with like, imagine a musician who cut an album which has sales of approximately 100 copies and was reviewed in a publication with a total circulation of a few hundred. Such a musician would not be notable.
424:
ambiguous: while one might think two reviews of an academic book in academic journals is 'significant' coverage, I don't think it is clearly the case that it should count as significant, and indeed I don't think it is 'significant' but rather simply what is expected of a new academic monograph. I would also note that
661:
Josh, I don't think this is comparing like with like. Being an academic is a profession. Academics produces works that are read, in the standard course of their work, by other academics. This activity does not in itself make them notable. Reviews in academic journals is a communication within a small
724:
I have to admit after reading it again in light of your comment that you are right and I was wrong above about the meaning of 'significant coverage', hence you are right that on this specific point it's not a matter of interpretation. I nonetheless continue to read GNG as not applying here. Firstly,
695:
doesn't apply to academics. I am applying it. Clearly we have different ideas about how it applies here. I do claim that academic journals are lesser sources of notability than popular magazines, since I believe notability is established by significant coverage per GNG and I believe this coverage is
423:
My main concern here is consistency, so if the conclusion is that the great majority of publishing academics should have
Knowledge articles for them, then I will be content with that result. I would also note however that the criterion for general notability is 'significant coverage', which is quite
705:
I don't understand your special pleading case in the slightest. Show me the sources, and I'll support keeping an article on anyone, academic or not, no matter how few people hear their views. I don't really understand what that's meant to prove. As for us having "different" views about what the GNG
984:
While I agree with what you say, in line with my comments above, I do want to note in fairness that you perhaps slightly underestimate the seniority of
Associate Professors in the Australian system: while in North America Associate Professor is the lowest tenured rank, in Australia rank and tenure
671:
I don't find that argument at all convincing, for reasons I'd be happy to explain, but I'll just cut to the point: What I'm hearing here is twofold. First, you're claiming that academic journals are literally worse sources for establishing notability than popular magazines. Second, you're claiming
961:
textbook -- and got nothing for my efforts. I'm now starting all over again, applying for a fellowship at the age of 52. Wish me luck at the
January 16th interview! My triplet sister, a scholar at a "Carnegie tier-I university", has lots of entries at Google Scholar and has written too books, but
787:
The subject neither meets the GNG nor PROF; that's the bottom line. I am thoroughly unimpressed by arguments that failure to set the bar for academics as low as some might like, or that the longstanding principle about notability not being inherited shouldn't be suspended in their favor, implies
628:
John: Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but I'm not convinced anyone has answered yet: Why do you have such a high bar for academics? Multiple works reviewed in highly reliable sources would be enough to ground notability of any musician, novelist, filmmaker, etc. Do you believe that the GNG
878:
The question is whether this article meets the notability requirements for inclusion. As I've argued, it doesn't seem to me that it does. I am quite willing to accept that this means that 80% of the articles on academics on
Knowledge should be deleted. Indeed, I think that WP:NOT implies that we
450:
publishes lengthy (I think even peer reviewed, but I'm not certain about that) reviews of new books (not "every" new book- not even close) from specially selected academics, and is well-respected and widely read in the philosophical community. Again, I don't see why it's being treated with such
445:
a lengthy book review constitutes significant coverage. This discussion would not be arising if we were talking about film reviews, or novel reviews, or album reviews, or episode reviews appearing in newspapers. It's odd that reviews in academic journals are treated with such suspicion. Third,
436:
I find these claims bizarre. First, plenty of "publishing academics", even mid- or late-career academics, have not published books, or have not published books with major presses, and/or have not published books which have attracted any reviews. If you look through a faculty list at a research
486:
Not in my view, no, but citation rates are an imprecise science, both in terms of judging the significance of a work (within philosophy, some kinds of works and works on some particular topics are going to see higher citation rates) and because the automatically generated citation numbers are
676:
does not apply to academics. Neither of these claims have any basis in
Knowledge's policies or guidelines (or, if I'm wrong here, please point to the guidelines I am not aware of), and they result in the kind of anti-intellectualism for which Knowledge is frequently criticised.
696:
more significant. I do not believe this is anti-intellectualism. Rather, I believe the opposite opinion is special pleading that takes intellectuals as having eo ipso higher notability than any other class of individual whose ideas are heard by a very small audience.
569:
notability). Second, both of
Vardoulakis's monographs (and both of his collections, but it's the monographs I'm more concerned with here) literally meet the GNG in their own right; it would surely be odd to say that his two monographs are notable but that he is not.
803:
Numerous articles about
Vardoulakis's work are cited in the article. It is not clear to me at this stage what everyone is actually looking for, here. Tabloid stories about his personal life? What establishes an academic's notability if not articles about his work?
706:
entails; I'm just going off what is written. Are the sources reliable? Yes, they're in peer reviewed journals. Is the coverage significant? Yeah, it's a whole article, not a passing mention. (And yes, that's what "significant" means; "
428:
notes that outlets which themselves review almost every book that comes out shouldn't be taken to contribute to notability, and that one of the cited reviews is in NDPR, which reviews almost every new philosophy monograph.
177:
956:
universities. Having taught for almost two decades at a lesser college, and failed to get tenure, I am well aware how difficult this must be. I was managing editor of a law journal and edited two editions of a popular
507:
notability guideline. I ask you what I asked esperant: why are you setting such a high bar for academics? This kind of coverage would unquestionably ground notability in the case of a musician or novelist.
471:
guides us to consider these together in judging whether a work has made a "significant impact" in its field. Does 30 citations for a six year old book really constitute a "highly cited" work in philosophy?
224:
643:
Or, to be blunter: "Delete. Almost all musicians produce albums. Doesn't matter if these albums have been reviewed in multiple magazines, this musician has not yet charted at a level required by
522:
It's not my intention to set a high bar, just to consistently apply the criteria we usually apply to academic biographies in AfDs. I agree there are big discrepancies between the various SNGs (
561:
Ok, great, I don't think we disagree as much as I thought. Two thoughts on "reviews of his work" versus "articles about him". First, these reviews at least amount of significant coverage
547:
is irrelevant. At this point I can't say I agree that the reviews of his books constitute significant coverage of Vardoulakis himself, but I'd happily change my !vote if shown otherwise.
738:
and the like. These guidelines are in place to identify notable people who do not meet the GNG. That's not how they're being used here, however; you're explicitly trying to use them to
966:
full or named professors. Too soon is right. By the way, there are several scholars whose articles I think we need to delete, but that is not on the table for discussion right now.
823:
If someone like Vardoulakis is not a notable academic, then who is? According to pro-deletes, I think we have to delete more than 80 percent of academics'pages in Knowledge. --
130:
171:
260:
388:. As an associate professor with relatively low citations and apparently no other indicators of notability, the subject doesn't quite meet our standard of notability.
242:
594:
788:
that Knowledge is "anti-intellectual." If people are unhappy with one or another SNG, the argument should be made at the appropriate talk page, not here.
899:: I am no longer watching this page. If you wish to talk to me in particular, please comment on my talk page. This has been an eye-opening discussion.
103:
98:
137:
107:
526:
being the paradigmatic example), and would definitely support a proposal to loosen the criteria for academics, but that's a wider discussion.
90:
66:
311:
Comment: Not sure how you derive this h-index from GS: there is a more prominent academic of the same name working in computing who has a
614:
almost all academics in this field will publish books. Vardoulakis does not yet have the level of citations to make him highly cited.
192:
708:"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.
159:
17:
153:
1010:
989:
975:
934:
917:
908:
883:
873:
858:
832:
813:
798:
763:
729:
719:
700:
686:
666:
656:
638:
623:
603:
579:
556:
517:
481:
460:
418:
397:
367:
333:
319:
305:
270:
252:
234:
216:
72:
1029:
619:
149:
94:
40:
944:- it appears that he just received tenure from a lesser-known university. We have sometimes kept articles about
644:
312:
61:
710:") Are the articles independent of the subject? Clearly. Where's the room for a difference of interpretation?
487:
unreliable. That said, this discussion is academic. My claim does not rest on citation rates; it rests on the
467:
I think the reviews would carry more weight if they were accompanied by higher citation rates overall, since
199:
267:
249:
231:
315:
and an h-index of 5. By my rough calculation this subject of this deletion proposal has an h-index of 4.
1025:
599:
36:
854:
789:
707:
615:
363:
301:
86:
78:
543:
I didn't realise you were basing your argument on the GNG. Of course if Vardoulakis meets that then
1006:
904:
869:
828:
809:
759:
715:
682:
652:
634:
575:
513:
456:
414:
185:
56:
53:
750:
would justify not having an article about an established academic; the appeal sounds suspiciously
165:
963:
523:
437:
university, you might not get this impression, but being on the faculty at a research university
289:
971:
849:
of 50. The early-career subject of the BLP does does not come within visual sighting of that.
552:
477:
393:
329:
264:
246:
228:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1024:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
324:
Web of Science gives him a h-index of 2. Either way I think we can agree it's not very high.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
850:
359:
297:
1002:
900:
865:
842:
824:
805:
755:
735:
711:
678:
648:
630:
571:
544:
509:
496:
468:
452:
425:
410:
385:
293:
209:
986:
880:
747:
726:
697:
692:
673:
663:
492:
488:
430:
406:
355:
316:
213:
967:
958:
928:
548:
473:
389:
325:
124:
949:
948:
professors, but those have been at the most prestigious universities, such as
734:
The GNG is explicitly not a set of necessary conditions, which is why we have
845:
with over more than 25,000 citations in GS (I lost count after that) and an
292:. Nominator is advised to learn more about the academic citation system in
441:
sets one apart from many other academics (or would-be academics). Second,
953:
846:
351:
285:
962:
does not have a Knowledge article either, nor tenure for that matter.
1018:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
841:
Then who is? What a bizarre question! One answer is philosopher
384:. I agree that simple having one's work reviewed doesn't meet
920:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
499:
explain, a failure to meet the academic-specific guidelines
225:
list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
746:
meet the GNG. And that's sad. (I've no idea what part of
409:
on their own; if his books are notable, he certainly is.
208:
I do not believe this academic meets any criterion for
120:
116:
112:
864:
That's a hyperbole. Please read my second sentence! --
629:
does not apply to philosophers? If so, on what basis?
503:
preclude an individual's being notable if (s)he meets
184:
288:
of 6 not quite enough, even in this low-cited field.
926:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1032:). No further edits should be made to this page.
261:list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions
243:list of Australia-related deletion discussions
198:
8:
595:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
593:Note: This debate has been included in the
259:Note: This debate has been included in the
241:Note: This debate has been included in the
223:Note: This debate has been included in the
592:
258:
240:
222:
1001:, for the reasons described by Joe Roe.
7:
24:
350:Thanks for this. I agree with an
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
976:18:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
935:23:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
909:17:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
884:13:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
874:06:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
859:21:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
833:09:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
814:18:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
799:18:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
764:14:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
730:05:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
720:04:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
701:03:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
687:15:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
667:05:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
657:02:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
639:02:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
624:02:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
604:05:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
580:19:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
557:17:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
518:17:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
482:15:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
461:14:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
433:05:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC
419:03:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
398:23:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
368:01:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
334:00:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
320:00:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
306:23:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
271:22:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
253:22:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
235:22:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
217:22:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
489:general notability guideline
407:general notability guideline
1011:23:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
990:21:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
73:06:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
1049:
1021:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
691:I'm not claiming that
645:WP:OBSCUREGUIDELINE#C1
964:Usually we only keep
87:Dimitris Vardoulakis
79:Dimitris Vardoulakis
358:is not met either.
937:
616:John Pack Lambert
606:
273:
255:
237:
1040:
1023:
931:
925:
923:
921:
795:
602:
203:
202:
188:
140:
128:
110:
69:
64:
59:
34:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1030:deletion review
1019:
938:
929:
916:
914:
791:
598:
145:
136:
101:
85:
82:
67:
62:
57:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1046:
1044:
1035:
1034:
1014:
1013:
995:
994:
993:
992:
979:
978:
924:
913:
912:
911:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
843:Ernest Gellner
836:
835:
818:
817:
816:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
608:
607:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
465:
464:
463:
400:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
275:
274:
256:
238:
206:
205:
142:
81:
76:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1045:
1033:
1031:
1027:
1022:
1016:
1015:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
997:
996:
991:
988:
983:
982:
981:
980:
977:
973:
969:
965:
960:
955:
951:
947:
943:
940:
939:
936:
933:
932:
922:
919:
910:
906:
902:
898:
895:
894:
885:
882:
877:
876:
875:
871:
867:
866:Ali Pirhayati
863:
862:
860:
856:
852:
848:
844:
840:
839:
838:
837:
834:
830:
826:
825:Ali Pirhayati
822:
819:
815:
811:
807:
802:
801:
800:
797:
796:
794:
786:
783:
765:
761:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
732:
731:
728:
723:
722:
721:
717:
713:
709:
704:
703:
702:
699:
694:
690:
689:
688:
684:
680:
675:
670:
669:
668:
665:
660:
659:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
641:
640:
636:
632:
627:
626:
625:
621:
617:
613:
610:
609:
605:
601:
600:North America
596:
591:
581:
577:
573:
568:
564:
560:
559:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
525:
521:
520:
519:
515:
511:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
485:
484:
483:
479:
475:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
449:
444:
440:
435:
434:
432:
427:
422:
421:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
401:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
380:
379:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
335:
331:
327:
323:
322:
321:
318:
314:
310:
309:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
281:
277:
276:
272:
269:
266:
262:
257:
254:
251:
248:
244:
239:
236:
233:
230:
226:
221:
220:
219:
218:
215:
211:
201:
197:
194:
191:
187:
183:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
151:
148:
147:Find sources:
143:
139:
135:
132:
126:
122:
118:
114:
109:
105:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
83:
80:
77:
75:
74:
70:
65:
60:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1020:
1017:
998:
959:Business law
945:
941:
927:
915:
901:Josh Milburn
896:
820:
806:Josh Milburn
792:
790:
784:
756:Josh Milburn
751:
743:
739:
712:Josh Milburn
679:Josh Milburn
649:Josh Milburn
631:Josh Milburn
611:
572:Josh Milburn
566:
562:
510:Josh Milburn
504:
500:
453:Josh Milburn
447:
442:
438:
411:Josh Milburn
402:
381:
279:
278:
265:Everymorning
247:Everymorning
229:Everymorning
207:
195:
189:
181:
174:
168:
162:
156:
146:
133:
49:
47:
31:
28:
793:Ravenswing
742:people who
563:of his work
524:WP:PORNSTAR
451:suspicion.
290:WP:Too soon
172:free images
950:Ivy league
851:Xxanthippe
505:some other
491:. As both
386:WP:PROF#C1
360:Xxanthippe
354:of 2. And
313:GS proflie
298:Xxanthippe
1026:talk page
1003:1292simon
946:associate
672:that the
443:of course
37:talk page
1028:or in a
987:esperant
954:Oxbridge
918:Relisted
881:esperant
727:esperant
698:esperant
664:esperant
501:does not
431:esperant
317:esperant
214:esperant
131:View log
39:or in a
968:Bearian
930:MBisanz
897:Comment
847:h-index
785:Delete:
740:exclude
736:WP:PROF
549:Joe Roe
545:WP:PROF
497:WP:PROF
474:Joe Roe
469:WP:PROF
439:already
426:WP:PROF
390:Joe Roe
352:h-index
326:Joe Roe
294:WP:Prof
286:h-index
210:WP:PROF
178:WP refs
166:scholar
104:protect
99:history
54:King of
999:Delete
942:Delete
752:ad hoc
748:WP:NOT
693:WP:GNG
612:Delete
493:WP:GNG
382:Delete
356:WP:GNG
282:Delete
268:(talk)
250:(talk)
232:(talk)
150:Google
108:delete
50:delete
567:their
284:. GS
193:JSTOR
154:books
138:Stats
125:views
117:watch
113:links
16:<
1007:talk
972:talk
905:talk
870:talk
855:talk
829:talk
821:Keep
810:talk
760:talk
716:talk
683:talk
653:talk
635:talk
620:talk
576:talk
553:talk
514:talk
495:and
478:talk
457:talk
448:NDPR
415:talk
403:Keep
394:talk
364:talk
330:talk
302:talk
280:Weak
186:FENS
160:news
121:logs
95:talk
91:edit
952:or
754:.)
674:GNG
647:."
200:TWL
129:– (
52:.
1009:)
974:)
907:)
872:)
861:.
857:)
831:)
812:)
762:)
744:do
718:)
685:)
655:)
637:)
622:)
597:.
578:)
555:)
516:)
480:)
459:)
417:)
396:)
366:)
332:)
308:.
304:)
296:.
263:.
245:.
227:.
180:)
123:|
119:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
71:♠
1005:(
970:(
903:(
868:(
853:(
827:(
808:(
758:(
714:(
681:(
651:(
633:(
618:(
574:(
551:(
512:(
476:(
455:(
413:(
392:(
370:.
362:(
328:(
300:(
204:)
196:·
190:·
182:·
175:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
152:(
144:(
141:)
134:·
127:)
89:(
68:♣
63:♦
58:♥
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.