Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hope May


 * 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.  kur  ykh   05:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hope May

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article does not appear to meet any of the criteria of the wikipedia "professor test" for academic biographies. The subject of the bio is married to a notable person, but this does not confer notability on the actual subject of the bio according to wikipedia standards. Note also that almost no pages link to this page. Perhaps the contents of this page could be abridged and merged into the spouse's page if this is deemed appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.75.174 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The individual is the spouse of a notable person AND is an accomplished individual in her own right. She is the author of two books -- one which is published by a publishing house that has a wide reach in UK and Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.86.22.191 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 11 May 2010
 * — 91.86.22.191 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— Bereitschaftspotential (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep If not having other pages link to this page is grounds for deletion, then many other pages should be deleted. At what number of linked pages to a page is the latter consider worthy to be on Wikipedia?  Indeed, what makes Wikipedia valuable is that it can provide information about topics that is not available via the typical channels.  This individual may not fit the criteria of "notable academics" but given the work that she does both individually and with her notable husband, this warrants a page of her own.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedividedself (talk • contribs) 16:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)  — Thedividedself (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Enough reliable sources confirm notability as a stand-alone article regardless of spouse. Article needs wikifying - which is not motive for AfD.--Technopat (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't have time at the moment to try to disentangle search results for the subject from coincidental juxtapositions of the words "hope" and "may", but I would point out the the subject's position as director of the Center for Professional & Personal Ethics at Central Michigan University, despite is grand-sounding title, doesn't seem to be a senior academic post - according to her university bio she "does all of the web-design, podcasts, and promotional materials for the Ethics Center and its student-centered projects", which sounds much more like an administrative than an academic position. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. In addition to what Phil mentioned, I find that the standard "professor metrics" are unimpressive. She has one book having average holdings ("On Socrates": ~250 institutions) and another with pretty meager holdings ("Aristotle's Ethics": <50 institutions – this is a new book). GS is not much help here because most of the hits to the phrase "hope may" are false-positives (there are oodles of them). However, WoS shows no discernable research publications. Indeed, aside from the material that discussed other people (now resected), most of the article simply talks about her undergrad and grad school training. This seems, on balance, to be a vanity bio. Just to remind the panelists here (two of whom are brand-new to WP), having a notable spouse does not in and of itself confer any notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep Another reference, not mentioned on Hope May's page, can be found at http://commons.pacificu.edu/eip/vol6/iss2/11/. The work that May and Wigand do together, combined with May's work as an independent author, should suffice for notability according to Wikipedia standards. May's most recent book is held by libraries throughout the world and is published by a highly respected international publishing house which has a Wikipedia page (Continuum).  The entry for Continuum's page says that it is a "leading academic publisher in London and New York".  That book was released in late February 2010 and libraries are just beginning to include in their holdings.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bereitschaftspotential (talk • contribs) 21:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's my point. You're arguing notability on the basis of one 10-year-old book having average holdings and one newly published book. That's it and it's pretty unremarkable for someone who is an associate professor. Let me point out that the bit about being a "leading academic publisher" is PR fluff from their corporate website and does not in fact appear on their wikipedia page, as you claim. I rather doubt that Continuum is held in the same esteem as the actual leading academic publishers like OUP, CUP, or PUP. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC).


 * Delete I wrote the synopsis at the top of this page but didn't know to make a vote. My nomination of this page for AfD was based on the criteria listed at Notability_(academics), which seem the like only relevant notability criteria in this case. The question, it seems, is whether the subject meets Criterion 1 listed at that page. This is a subjective measure, of course, but that page makes clear that having a lot of published works is not sufficient. Rather, the works must be unusually high-impact in the subject's field. Having one decade-old book at 250 academic libraries and a newer one at 50 academic libraries (number of academic library holdings being one of the suggested measures at that page) as described by Agricola44, as well as coauthoring a 2005 article in a Pacific University Oregon philosophy journal (which does not appear to have a wikipedia page) as mentioned by Bereitschaftspotential, does not seem to make this associate professor stand out as one who has made a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Perhaps in the future this subject will meet the notability criteria and reinstatement of the page will be justified. But by my reading of the subject's impact in the discipline, the notability criteria do not appear to be currently met. --71.92.75.174 (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not yet notable. But a few comments: I wouldn't judge by what journals have WP articles, many, perhaps even most, of the notable journals do not yet have them, especially in the humanities. Two university press books or the equivalent is the usual standard for tenure in the humanities at the best universities, but Continuum is not really a leading publisher of the quality of the major university presses,   and Wadsworth/thompson is a publisher primarily of undergraduate textbooks, not scholarly work. Not only does ser not yet have tenure, she does not even appear to be a member of the regular faculty. It's not clear how to deal with academics whose notability is primarily as presenters in the popular media, but i suppose for that aspect of an academic career we should use the standards applicable to any press commentator, and I do not think she meets them.  DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (Please give only one "keep" or "delete" opinion)  Actually, she does have tenure and is now an associate professor.   She also is the recipient of an "excellence in teaching award."  One of her articles "Socratic Ignorance and the Therapeutic Aim of the Elenchos" is cited by leading scholars of Plato/Socrates and used in several dissertations http://www.chsbs.cmich.edu/phl/faculty/may.html.  http://www.cm-life.com/2001/04/20/fiveprofessorshonoredforexcellence/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bereitschaftspotential (talk • contribs) 05:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (Please give only one "keep" or "delete" opinion) See the google entry for the "Socratic Ignorance and the Therapeutic Aim of the Elenchos" which reveals numerous citations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bereitschaftspotential (talk • contribs) 05:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Google Scholar lists seven citations for that work - way below the number required to confer notability on the author. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is nothing in the article itself, in the discussion above or in the results of my own research to indicate that the subject even approaches the level of notability described by WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to her husband. Many of the keep comments above seem to be of the form "she has tenure, therefore we should have an article on her". That's far below the standard required by WP:PROF. We still have no evidence (e.g. in the form of high citation counts) that her publications have made much of an impact, the teaching award is also not "highly prestigious" and "at a national or international level" as WP:PROF #2 requires, and I don't see a lot of independent press coverage of her which might satisfy WP:GNG in place of WP:PROF. In the absense of verifiable evidence that she's notable, I think we should delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I want to point out that Associate Professor does not guarantee notability--by our usual standards, some are, some aren't--I haven;t been keeping count but I think about 2/3 of those that come here are deleted--it depends to some extent on the university, to some extent on the publication record. Even full professor isn't a sure bet, unless it's from a distinguished university.  And, fwiw, an excellence in teaching award, or most other awards, from just within the person's university means very little.  DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * CommentIf we compare this case to Jill Biden, then Jill should not have her own Wikipedia page, but should be merged with her husband. She is an academic but has no extensive publishing record.  Like May, Jill founded a non-profit and does non-profit work.  It seems to me that Wikipedia's catageories of "notability" are too narrow.  If one is married to a notable spouse and is "accomplished" either through non-profit, artistic or scholarly work, then this warrants inclusion in Wikipedia.  In fact, it seems that if May was *not* a professor, then there would be less of a debate.  This debate seems to be about the substantiveness of her work, whether an associate or full professor warrants notability, whether tenure implies notability, etc.  Also, to the point about "google scholar" above, if one googles the name of the "Socratic Ignorance" article, one gets much more than 7 references.  Let's grant that this is a borderline case.  The precedent set by Jill Biden implies that Wikipedia recognizes a category of notability of the individual meets two factors: 1) is married to a notable spouse and 2)produces creative work that is recognized by a community, and/or engages in philanthropic work.  The publications and the citations to May's work meet those criteria.  Would there as be a great of an objection if the entry just said "spouse of Jeffrey Wigand" who publishes work in ancient philosophy and made NO reference to her academic position?   I think it would, and there would be fewer objections.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.136.63 (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. As an anonymous non-editor, my opinion on wikipedia standards should perhaps be discounted, but I think it's safe to say that the standards wikipedia has created, rather than precedent, should be the criteria under consideration here. Indeed, I'm sure there are many non-notable bios on wikipedia right now, most of which will sooner or later be deleted. But although I don't see it as germane, I may as well comment to the Jill Biden example. An accomplished woman and educator in her own right, she was married to a famous senator (who was frequent on the Sunday Morning Talk shows, I think, since the early 1970s when he first became a senator) since 1977. She was his wife when he ran for president in 1988. It was only in August 2008, however, when she became the Democratic nominee for Second Lady of the United States, that someone created a wikipedia page for her. I don't think she's notable for being married to someone famous. I think she's notable because she is Second Lady. Finally, I don't think this is the place to discuss whether Wikipedia's notability criteria are too restrictive. We're trying to discuss whether a particular bio meets these criteria. Presumably there is a place on wikipedia where people debate what the actual criteria should be.--(user 71.92.75.174, as above, but on different computer) 131.215.67.222 (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Standards are interpreted through precedent. A standard is simply a general principle and the general principle gains meaning through concrete examples.  So the two cannot be separated as without examples general principles are meaningless.  The majority of Jill Biden's page is devoted to her status as an educator.  And were she not married to notable persons  (senator, vice president) she would not have her own page.  In fact, as someone argued before, being a spouse of a notable individual does not confer "notability".  This IS Wikipedia's standard.  Therefore, Jill Biden should not have her page according to Wilkipedia's standards.  The fact that she DOES shows that Wikipedia recognizes a hybrid category if two factors are present 1) being married to a notable spouse and 2) being an educator/philanthropist/etc.   Hope May fits within this category and therefore should be kept.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthursenior (talk • contribs) 21:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * — Arthursenior (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. This discussion is about Hope May, not about Jill Biden. The spouse of a vice president of the United States will unavoidably become subject to significant coverage in reliable sources, which is our basic criterion for a separate article to exist. The same does not apply to the spouse of a whistle-blowing former tobacco company executive, however worthy she and he may be. I would add that this clearly orchestrated campaign to keep this article can only possibly reflect badly on Ms May by making it look as though having a Wikipedia article is more important to her than building a reputation via her academic work. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per prod - fails both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR inclusion guidelines. Also, notability is not inherited, so her spouse being notable does not cause her to be notable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:31, 16 May 2010 (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.