Talk:Hilary Greaves

Notability
What's the claim of notability, and are there more third-party RSes? - David Gerard (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi David, the main claims are her role as Director of a prestigious research center at Oxford and her scholarly impact (though the latter may not suffice in isolation). Pablo Stafforini (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * cool, do we have any third-party RSes? - David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to try to find some. Since the subject is an academic and her main claim to notability rests on the prestige of her current academic appointment, I'm not sure what exactly would count as a reliable source, though. Perhaps I can supply sources documenting this appointment or the creation of the research institute of which she is Director? Pablo Stafforini (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I found a relatively marginal mention of Greaves here. More relevantly, Dylan Matthews recently included a paper by Greaves in his list of the five most important academic publications of the last decade. So far this has appeared in Matthews' newsletter, but it will eventually be published as a Vox article. Happy to add a link when that happens. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Further to the above, this New York Times article describes Greaves as a "leading philosopher". Pablo Stafforini (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

David, I'm not sure it's accurate to say that GPI is an "initiative" of the Open Philanthropy Project. The latter partially funded it, but to my knowledge had otherwise no significant involvement (please correct me if I'm wrong). Thanks Pablo Stafforini (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I might be wrong - David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I just went through the article - literally every single source is primary. Is there any evidence of real-world notability, in verifiable third-party Reliable Sources? We really can't have a biography of a living person in Wikipedia with zero RSes. Even on, say, HPlusPedia there's a single mention in a reference - David Gerard (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi David, I think the reason why there aren't secondary sources is that, as WP:ACADEMIC notes, "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." In this case, I think the primary claim to notability is Greaves' position as Director of a research institute at a top university. But maybe this is insufficient to make her notable. What are your thoughts? Pablo Stafforini (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the WP:ACADEMIC talk archives, it seems that being the director of an academic research institute is a borderline case, with some cases being considered sufficient to establish notability but not others. In this case, my sense is that the prestige of the university that the center is part of (Oxford) would tip the scales towards regarding the appointment as sufficiently notable, though I'm not confident of this. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

What is the criterion of "Selected"?
Why these particular works? What's the criterion? - David Gerard (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I was the one who cut this down from a laundry list to just a few articles. As I said in the edit summary at the time, I took the top-cited ones according to Google Scholar.  (Citations are generally closely correlated with influence.)  User:Sir Paul went back and added another paper for which the subject was awarded a prize.  Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * that's pretty reasonable :-) - David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)