Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harris Mylonas

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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Mylonas[edit]

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

Article on an assistant professor at George Washington University in DC. Mylonas has an h-index of 3. Deprodded by the article creator, user:Maimonidesdc, who has only worked on this article and Nation-building (in order to add Mylonas prominently into that article). Abductive (reasoning) 23:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—h-index is of limited use in the humanities. Looking at the subject's cv I'd be comfortable with notability via WP:ACADEMIC (40 conference presentations, 40+ invited talks). Alternative is WP:AUTHOR. His Politics book is held in 200+ libraries and has received substantial reviews in the journals Südosteuropa, Journal of Modern Greek Studies, and Nationalities Papers. (CNA appears have reviewed it as well, but I'm not quite sure who they are.) From where I'm sitting, all this looks like a significant impact in his field. What am I missing? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you are missing is that there are 2 million professors in the world, and they have all published something. Abductive (reasoning) 00:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. But few of them manage 40 conference presentations and 40 invited talks before they go up for tenure. Changing to keep. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I consider him a respected and notable author based on his awards.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep award winning author, likely meets criteria by Author or Academic credentials as noted above. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Peter Katzenstein Book Prize" is "awarded annually to to an outstanding first book". This means it is for newbies, not respected elder scholars in a field. Abductive (reasoning) 00:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete; probably not yet notable A single book and a few papers (only 3 are in established journals) does not bring tenure at any first rate university. I use the evaluation of the true experts in a subject as the standard of notability, instead of inventing my own. h index is irrelevant in this subject one way or another, and so I would conclude not notable yet by WP:PROF. The question is whether there is notability as an author. It would depend on the single book. Looking at WorldCat I see 212 holdings; the book was published in 2012, and it on a popular subject--so this is only medium importance. There are the usual reviews. We can call them substantial or not as we choose. It would seem to come down to the importance of the prizes. The Katzenstein Prize "recognizes an outstanding first book in international relations", [1] and this is the first award of it. An award for "first book" s essentially a journeyman award, to recognize dan author of developing importance. The European Studies Book Award [councilforeuropeanstudies.org/grants-and-awards/book-award] Award, is an established reward, but it also is for "first book". Awards , especially unfamiliar awards need to be checked for importance. Given two separate prizes for best first book, a case could be made for notability, but I would prefer to see it recognized by his university. (If it were one award only, I would have said plain Delete, not weak delete. One of the arguments against accepting notability of Assistant Professors is that such articles are apt to be tinged with a little bit of promotionalism, whereas if we were going by encyclopedic importance, we would be writing articles first on the senior and most distinguished scholars. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Although I don't usually modify my !votes with "weak", I think DGG's reasoning is spot-on. Regarding the discussion higher-up in the thread, I'll note that conference presentations are standard academic fodder and do not indicate notability. (In fact, too many on a CV raises doubts for some tenure committees.) Regarding "invited talks", these are spotty, i.e. most will not represent a keynote lecture. Lots of professors list job talks on their CV as being "invited", so it is not unusual to see a dozen or two of these on a CV. Agricola44 (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

adding on to what Agricola44 says, I routinely remove all listings of conference presentations and symposium publication from articles on academics, except in those field of engineering where they are the most important means of communication, or where there's evidence that it actually was significant. In most fields I likewise usually remove book chapters (except for some esoteric areas of the humanities where it's a major means of publication). What counts in the humanities is widely read books; in the sciences, widely cited articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep:- I agree with Lesser Cartographies and awards won by the subject makes him notable although it was for a newbie. It just touches borderline of notability for me.Ireneshih (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 15:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added reference to two reviews of his book The Politics of Nation Building -- one in CHOICE, and an exceptionally long one in Journal of Modern Greek Studies. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 21:01, 8 September 2014 (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.