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. Good consensus that this does not meet WP:PROF -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justin St. P. Walsh[edit]

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

Associate professor. Does not yet meet the notability guideline for academics or the general notability guideline. – Joe (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Associate professor status has nothing to do with notability. Walsh has received a Rome Prize ^[1] and a Fulbright, and been a named visiting professor at a major university (Criteria 2 at WP:ACADEMIC). He has received large competitive grants from the National Geographic Society and the Loeb Classical Library Foundation at Harvard University. ^[2] The importance of his book can be seen in this review, by a leading figure in the field of classical archaeology.^[3] His current work has attracted significant media attention. ^[4] ^[5] Hossiejojo (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Hossiejojo[reply]

References

@Hossiejojo: Not directly, but I mentioned it because in previous AfDs the consensus has been that associate professors rarely have had time to make the significant impact that WP:PROF requires, and so we generally end up deleting them unless there's something exceptional. The awards you mention, while impressive, are still relatively junior. I don't think they meet #C2's "major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize" or "confer a high level of academic prestige". Research grants are not something we consider because they hardly ever produce significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The review and media coverage help, but reviews of academic monographs are pretty much routine, and I don't think there's quite enough in the press articles to pass the GNG. And ultimately, his very low citation counts are a strong indication that simply not enough has been said about his scholarship to support a balanced biography at this time. – Joe (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: First, the WP:ACADEMIC page says that only one of the criteria need to be fulfilled. I gave you a number of pieces of data. But the idea that the Rome Prize is not "major" -- its own page on Wikipedia lists every person who has received it, including Walsh. How many other awards get that kind of treatment? The American Academy in Rome is the most prestigious of the CAORC centers, which are the most important US overseas research institutes. Yes, getting your book reviewed is de rigueur, but there are multiple highly-positive reviews of Walsh's book in major venues including in the American Journal of Archaeology, the most-important journal in the field (see his Humanities Commons site). It seems like you're just being arbitrary here. Hossiejojo (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rome Prize is essentially a one year, early career fellowship/residency at the AAR and is given to thirty people a year. It's no Nobel. I don't agree that the things you have put forward amount to a pass of WP:PROF, but lets see what other editors think. – Joe (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lists are a dime a dozen on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Thus Wikipedia having an allegedly complete list of everyone who has recieved the Rome Prize is not a sign that winning it is a sign of notability. The list articles on the Rome Prize are severly lacking in citations. Also, in cases like Miss California and many other awards we have shown that having such a long list does not gaurantee that being on the list makes someone notable. Well under half, and probably only a quarter of recent, winners of the Rome Prize have articles. Other articles on Rome Prize winners may be ripe for deletion, since they often lack good sources. Awards of this level are not a sign in and of themselves that the person is a major and impactful scholar. The rules mean that starting scholars rarely are notable, and old established ones often are. That is the reality of how academics works, be it good or bad. Wikipedia is meant to reflect the reality of reliable source coverage, and starting scholars generally lack such coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that for scholars such as archeologists the Rome Prize seems to be largely limited to those who study the general area of Italy makes it even less of a distinguished award than it is for emerging figures in the arts, where the competition at least in theory is an open competition of all artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the Rome Prize has been given to 30 recipients consistently since its founding, we do not have a complete listing of receipients.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I note at he is not even mentioned on page Morgantina, a site that has been excavated since the 1800s. I don't doubt that he has been there - scores of archaeologists have been - but he does not seem to play an important role. I am not seeing widely cited papers; no books. It sort of comes down to a a few articles that cover his roles as co-directing the first archaeological investigation of a human habitation site in space, the International Space Station Archaeological Project. a non-notable notion that NASA needed to hire archaeologists to do a virtual dig in space. The article do not offer WP:SIGCOV of Walsh. I'm just not seeing notability here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:25, 22 November 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.