Talk:Jessica Wilson

notability note
Although secondary sources about Wilson are a bit sparse, the fact that she holds a distinguished professorship at a quality university and has previously held a named professorship means that she meets WP:ACADEMIC. I'll expand secondary sources as more become available. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the fact that Wilson has held a distinguished professorship at a major university and a named chair at another makes her clearly notable under WP:ACADEMIC. Furthermore, although I'd like more secondary sources, I don't see a balance of two and two as so bad as to be worthy as a tag.  I am removing both, bring up specific issues on talk if you have any left please. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * She's an associate professor with, so far as I can tell from Google scholar, an undistinguished record. If this was all it took to meet WP:ACADEMIC, we'd have articles on every associate professor in the whole country.  Msnicki (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at WP:ACADEMIC. Criterion #5 covers both people who have held named chairs and people who have held distinguished professorships at major institutions of higher education and research.  Wilson has held both a named chair and a distinguished professorship at two different major institutions.  Neither named chairs nor distinguished professorships are common in the field of philosophy, and to have held both definitely says something.  You certainly can't say that every associate professor has held both those positions - I'd guess that in the field of philosophy fewer than 1 in 100 have.  I'm leaving the tags in place to give you time to respond, and I'll look for additional secondary sources as I can to make it clear she also meets the GNG, but holding both a named chair and a distinguished professorship says a lot as far as WP:ACADEMIC is concerned.  Both named chairs and distinguished professorships are much more uncommon in philosopy than in, say, business, yet we accept them as concrete evidence of notability even in business.  Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm even more confused that you tagged Mary Louise Gill, who holds a named professorship at Brown University in addition to meeting WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG as questionably notable. Could you please review the relevant notability guidelines before you tag any more articles?  I can understand tagging Wilson to some extent because it involves a specialized notability guideline, but Mary Louise Gill meets the GNG, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:ACADEMIC, and all by a significant margin.  Both articles are definitely stubbish and in need of expansion, but both articles - especially Mary Louise Gill - definitively meet multiple relevant notability standards.  The solution to a stubbish article about a notable person is to expand it, not to tag it as non-notable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I also note that you asked in an edit summary what Wilson's h-index was. You realize that the h-index is not a widely used or generally considered appropriate citation metric in the humanities, right? I'd be glad to provide plenty of cites in favor of that if needed, but even our own article acknowledges it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Tagging Mary Louise Gill as non-notable twice over makes me concerned that you may not be familiar with the notability guidelines we apply to academics and authors. I'll be removing the tags from Wilson's article roughly 24 hours from now unless you articulate an argument that WP:ACADEMIC #5 doesn't apply to Wilson and that she also fails other relevant notability guidelines.  I don't mean to be harsh here, it's just a bit confusing.  Academic #5 is pretty black and white.  Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Mary Louise Gill has a named chair, so I agree Academic #5 applies to her and establishes notability. That does not apply to Wilson, the subject of this article, who does not have a named chair and is only a "distinguished visiting professor" starting this year.  Her "named chair" was only an assistant professorship, which is entry-level, even if it is endowed.  (The order is assistant, then associate, then professor.)  From WP:Academic, "Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments."


 * But even if notability is established, that does not mean you do not need secondary sources to write the article. The secondary sources you've cited in both cases are articles about the subjects' articles, not the subjects themselves.  You should still find secondary sources actually talking about the subject.  I can see you've carved out a little career scouring faculty directories for professors who don't yet have pages you add to your list of pages created.  But you can't just write all these articles from their CVs.  There is nothing disruptive about asking for secondary sources.  It is, however, quite disruptive to take this personally, as if you own the articles.  As the creator of the page, you should realize that you may not be completely unbiased about the quality of your work.  Msnicki (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Regular Distinguished Visiting Professor" - a distinguished full professorship without a definite end date - is more than likely to meet academic #5, especially in conjunction with her named professorship at a lower-than-full professor level. I don't take productive tagging or useful criticism of my work personally; I do view drive-by (and incorrect) tagging as counterproductive however.  Could Wilson's article benefit from more secondary sources?  Certainly, and I'll certainly be adding more as I come across them.  On the other hand, you also repeatedly tagged the article of someone (Gill) who holds a named professorship at a top tier school (for philosophy, anyway) who also certainly meets WP:AUTHOR as not meeting our notability guidelines, and in one editsum requested her h-index - which is not a widely used or even remotely commonly considered appropriate metric to assess the notability of a philosopher. Tangent, but my home internet is unfortunately primarily fried, which, combined with WiR stuff, means I'll likely not be paying great attention to this page for a number of days. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, please. You're such a victim.  Msnicki (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I checked HighBeam, and found only this, a listing of various metaphysics professors from North America who are teaching abroad from 2006-2007. It's a trivial mention ...  Go  Phightins  !  12:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Notable?
, what are the odds that I'd run into a random article to find you express an opinion I agree with? I looked at the AfD discussion, where the article squeaked by--I am not sure about the prize, but I do know that there is no body of work here that in my opinion makes this person notable per PROF. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)