Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilary Greaves


 * 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 keep. Consensus was that the subject passes WP:PROF. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hilary Greaves

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is entirely primary-sourced. It's been flagged for a few months on the talk page, and the author has responded. This isn't really workable for a BLP, and it needs third-party sources to exist. WP:BEFORE shows literally zero third-party coverage of Greaves. Director of an institute may pass WP:NPROF - if that's acceptable with literally zero third-party sources, then the article needs to be cut to a stub evidencing just that, and not serve as a lengthy advertisement/resume for the subject. David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep with a 861 GS cites in the very low cited field of philosophy there may just be a pass of WP:Prof. It would have been better to have waited longer to have avoided any allegation of WP:Too soon. It is nonsense to say there are no third party sources: there are some 861 of them. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC).
 * Keep the subject passes WP:Prof with research. WP:NEXIST. Lightburst (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm the user who created and wrote most of the article. My reasons for thinking the article should not be deleted are given in the talk page. If anyone has suggestions on how to improve the entry, I'd be happy to try to implement them. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep the article has sources which demonstrate notability. Wm335td (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:PROF; the primary sources are mostly for mundane biographical claims like dates of employment. It's not our job to investigate whether Oxford's Faculty of Philosophy is for some reason lying about who works there. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - according to Oxford's own website, she's a full professor at one of the leading institutions of higher learning in the world. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I definitely don't think that merely being a full professor at Oxford is enough by itself for notability; certainly it doesn't pass any WP:PROF criterion except by some special pleading that somehow Oxford is different. But I think that most Oxford full professors should likely be notable by some other criterion; otherwise, why would Oxford have chosen them? In this case I agree with Xxanthippe that the citation counts are likely enough (in a low citation field) for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.