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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Vardoulakis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe this academic meets any criterion for WP:PROF – 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. esperant 22:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. GS h-index of 6 not quite enough, even in this low-cited field. WP:Too soon. Nominator is advised to learn more about the academic citation system in WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • 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 GS proflie and an h-index of 5. By my rough calculation this subject of this deletion proposal has an h-index of 4. esperant 00:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Web of Science gives him a h-index of 2. Either way I think we can agree it's not very high. Joe Roe (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I agree with an h-index of 2. And WP:GNG is not met either. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. I agree that simple having one's work reviewed doesn't meet WP:PROF#C1. 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. Joe Roe (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 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 general notability guideline on their own; if his books are notable, he certainly is. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main concern here is consistency, so if the conclusion is that the great majority of publishing academics should have Wikipedia 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 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 WP:PROF 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. esperant 05:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC
    • 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 university, you might not get this impression, but being on the faculty at a research university already sets one apart from many other academics (or would-be academics). Second, of course 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, 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 NDPR 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 suspicion. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the reviews would carry more weight if they were accompanied by higher citation rates overall, since WP:PROF 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? Joe Roe (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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 unreliable. That said, this discussion is academic. My claim does not rest on citation rates; it rests on the general notability guideline. As both WP:GNG and WP:PROF explain, a failure to meet the academic-specific guidelines does not preclude an individual's being notable if (s)he meets some other 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. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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 (WP:PORNSTAR being the paradigmatic example), and would definitely support a proposal to loosen the criteria for academics, but that's a wider discussion.

I didn't realise you were basing your argument on the GNG. Of course if Vardoulakis meets that then WP:PROF 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. Joe Roe (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 of his work. 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 their 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. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete almost all academics in this field will publish books. Vardoulakis does not yet have the level of citations to make him highly cited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 does not apply to philosophers? If so, on what basis? Josh Milburn (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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 WP:OBSCUREGUIDELINE#C1." Josh Milburn (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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 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. esperant 05:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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 that the GNG does not apply to academics. Neither of these claims have any basis in Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia is frequently criticised. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not claiming that WP:GNG 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 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. esperant 03:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • 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 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; ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.") Are the articles independent of the subject? Clearly. Where's the room for a difference of interpretation? Josh Milburn (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • 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, 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 Wikipedia does not give articles to any academic with a reviewed book. esperant 05:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • The GNG is explicitly not a set of necessary conditions, which is why we have WP:PROF 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 exclude people who do meet the GNG. And that's sad. (I've no idea what part of WP:NOT would justify not having an article about an established academic; the appeal sounds suspiciously ad hoc.) Josh Milburn (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: 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 that Wikipedia is "anti-intellectual." If people are unhappy with one or another SNG, the argument should be made at the appropriate talk page, not here. Ravenswing 18:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 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 Wikipedia. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then who is? What a bizarre question! One answer is philosopher Ernest Gellner with over more than 25,000 citations in GS (I lost count after that) and an h-index of 50. The early-career subject of the BLP does does not come within visual sighting of that. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

That's a hyperbole. Please read my second sentence! --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia should be deleted. Indeed, I think that WP:NOT implies that we 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. esperant 13:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: 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. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it appears that he just received tenure from a lesser-known university. We have sometimes kept articles about associate professors, but those have been at the most prestigious universities, such as Ivy league or Oxbridge 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 Business law 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 does not have a Wikipedia article either, nor tenure for that matter. Usually we only keep 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. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. esperant 21:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, for the reasons described by Joe Roe. 1292simon (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.