Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Falvey


 * 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. Kevin (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Falvey

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

As is typical with assistant professors, Dr Falvey does not yet meet Wikipedia's standard for inclusion. His papers get, according to Google Scholar, 73, 20, 9, 8, and 4 citations, yielding an h-index in the single digits. His first paper (and dissertation), on the topic of belief, was Falvey and Owens 1994, has a brief mention in the Externalism About Mental Content article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This mention does not, in my opinion, put Dr Falvey over the high bar of WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 16:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, much too early for an article on him, fails PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WoS shows an h-index of at most 3. Also, the fact that he got his PhD almost 15 years ago and remains an assistant professor (i.e. has not been promoted from academic entry level) also suggests lack of impact. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete. WP notability not yet achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Temporary weak keep - More of a comment, to be honest: I work in science, but it is my understanding that h-indexes and similar things behave very differently in fields like philosophy or humanities in general (and in general their distribution is different between fields). Are they truly a reliable indicator of notability in this case? An h-index low in a field may be very high for others, and we have a publication with 73 citations, which is not trivial. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I have to say what I was merely alluding to before; the one paper/dissertation was more the child of his advisor, Owens, than him. This is borne out by his weak(er) record since that time. Abductive  (reasoning) 12:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It may well be, but how do you (we) know that? You mean you deduce it from the fact that his latest publication record is by far not as influential? -- Cycl o pia talk  12:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I abduce that by the fact that the only secondary source that mentions him or his work mentions the paper on belief. Here's the deal; in spite of the usual congruence of WP:PROF with notability, there are cases where it is simpler to just look at the secondary sources and judge directly. Abductive  (reasoning) 12:27, 3 November 2009 (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.