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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Wilson[edit]

Jessica Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY and thus unsuitable. The subject is an associate professor but does not appear to satisfy the requirements of WP:SCHOLAR necessary to establish notability in lieu of sources. Googling turned up nothing suitable. Article has been tagged for over a year. Msnicki (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 13:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 13:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 13:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:ACADEMIC #5 - distinguished professor at a major university. Morever, there are more sources in journals I don't currently have access to but intend to add eventually. But still, holding a distinguished professor appointment at a major university is enough to keep, since academic primary sources can be assumed to be reliable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. From the cited 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. The subject is not a full professor, she is only an associate professor (c.f., her CV and her department listing), which is a very different place in the academic food chain. In addition, her work has not been highly cited. Her Google scholar page shows only 511 citations; her most-cited paper has only 86 citations. In academia, a widely-cited paper is generally understood to be one that received over 1000 citations. And to reach full-professor, an associate professor usually needs 1000 overall (c.f., "The Single Number that Best Predicts Professor Tenure".) There's simply no evidence this individual passes the "Average Professor Test". Perhaps this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Msnicki (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that a "widely-cited paper is ... over 1000 citations" may hold in some disciplines, but there are disciplines in which 100-200 cites is a lot -- it depends on the size of the discipline and the publication frequency within it. For example, disciplines like theology or classical studies have small numbers of scholars period, so citation numbers are often not terribly large. I don't know what the pattern is for philosophy, but I wouldn't want others perpetuating the idea that 1K is some kind of minimum. As with most WP guidelines, there is a huge amount of "it depends" that makes a numeric evaluation quite difficult. LaMona (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The Lebowitz Prize is a pretty big deal in the philosophical world, with $30K check and sources here and here to establish that; it is for "celebrated philosophers for their excellence in thought". While Wilson doesn't get much news coverage, and it is hard to get secondary sources describing what her impact is, in the philosophical world (why my vote is a "weak keep") and while much of this work in metaphysics is highly technical and abstruse and almost might be, shall we say, doomed intellectually to be dull and unproductive, still, it is an important subject (in my view). But there aren't many references to support a WP:GNG. Still, she's clearly a smart cookie, although I'd bet a cold beer that her understanding of how to square 'free will' with determinism is not as good as my understanding -- not her fault, shall I say, since she was not schooled in the best university in the world as I have been and continue to study. Her Google scholar citations number 511, her h-index is strong at 11, the i10 index respectable at 12. That said, the article should be trimmed way back; if it stays, I'll try, so closing admin write something on my talk page if the article stays.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep -- She has a significant body of work. The frequency of appearances in citation calculations will vary considerably from subject to subject. She is clearly rather more than a run-of-the-mill lecturer. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Well yes, no doubt a very she's very clever philosopher, but I bet my understanding of a cold beer is much deeper than hers. Le petit fromage (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per WP:BARE. In any case, she's accomplished more than have of academics. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.