This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Philosophy: Philosophers / Contemporary Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Contemporary philosophy Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This person is only a simple lecturer, not even a senior lecturer or reader, let alone a full professor, let alone a professor with a named chair. She falls short of the notability guidelines in virtually every respect. Pirhayati, please read the Wikipedia:Notability (academics), so that you understand what they are. Fæ, I fully understand your desire to ensure that women academics are adequately represented. I share this desire. My suggestion is to start with notable women academics. They should have at least a full professorship, ideally a named chair, and their work should have been cited widely (I'd think in the ballpark of 250 times, to throw out a number, obviously this varies with academic subject), and have been multiply reviewed in renowned academic publications. May I suggest introducing pages for Ofra Magidor (she has an Oxford chair!), for Katalin Bimbo, Deborah Black, Verity Harte, Margaret Graver, Kathrin Glüer-Pagin, Rachel Barney, Susan Sauvé Meyer, Diana Raffman, Cheryl Misak, to name just a few. All of these have full professorships and are widely cited. Many have named chairs and/or have published several books. And there are many others. Next there would be associate professorships and readers, then senior lecturers (in the UK). KDS4444, would you back me up on this? I don't want to start an editing war, this just seems a little out of proportion. -- PlatoAristotle ( talk) 23:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Firstly, why create this thread out of order?

Secondly, did you read the discussion about deletion that already exists?

Lastly, KDS4444 is blocked.

-- Fæ ( talk) 09:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I think fellows of Whitney Humanities Center can be considered to meet criterion 3 of WP:PROF. If you don't think so, let's create an AFD. Ali Pirhayati ( talk) 09:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I think that's a waste of time. This thread is raised by someone who believes that I should only create articles for women academics who have "at least a full professorship", which would make creating articles for women historians before 1960 virtually impossible. Women did not get offered professorships back then, not because they were non-notable, but because they should be wives and got pregnant. -- Fæ ( talk) 10:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply

(1) I apologize for having created this thread out of order. My sincerest apologies.

(2) I very carefully read the entire discussion that already exists. I noted that the people in the discussion appear to have personal acquaintance with the person of this article, which according to Jytdog is sometimes not a good thing. More importantly, I did not find the arguments in that discussion made in favor of notability to be persuasive (see below). But let me first mention that I took it for granted that my point was about living academics. And if this was not clear (all my examples are living academics, this talk page starts with a header on living people), I sincerely apologize that I did not make this clear enough. So to make it clear now: my points only concern living academics, and they are based on the Wikipedia notability criteria, as applied to living academics.

(3) I did not know that KDS4444 is blocked. In future I will check. My apologies for not checking beforehand. This notwithstanding, many of the points KDS4444 made are valid.

Then let me repeat. I believe the person of this article falls short of all the notability criteria. I just looked at the page for the Whitney Humanities Center. Several of the people who are Fellows are assistant professors, that is non-tenured, and are possibly in their first year. (I did not check the year. I'm not a sleuth.) In fact it looks as if every faculty member who teaches in something called the Humanities Program is a Fellow of the Humanities Center, independent of their academic status (see e.g. Lucas Bender who is on that list). So that sort of Fellowship does not in any way meet the criteria of WP:PROF.

I also note that the person of this article is not on the list of the Whitney Humanities Center, so a citation is still needed.

The second Fellowship, from Durham, it appears, was a two-month (or three-month) visiting fellowship. A quick look at the present visiting fellows shows that they include non-tenured assistant professors. So, again, having such a fellowship does not put a person any closer to WP:PROF.

As to the person's editorial role at The Philosophical Quarterly, first, the person is not mentioned on their web page among the members of the editorial board, possibly since a recent addition, so there is another citation still needed. Again, a quick glance at the members of that editorial board suggests that many members of the board are academically very junior. Unlike some other journals, which have only renowned board members, the Philosophical Quarterly seems to draw from all faculty levels from Scottish universities. In any case, the person is not 'head or chief editor'. So the person's presence on that editorial board does not to put her any closer to WP:PROF.

The argument made by User:Fae that there is a shortage of British academic women in the field of history on WP seems not to be a good point. There are no quota here. There are notability criteria. It also appears, from prior discussion on this page, that the person of this page is not British so the classification as British philosopher may be inaccurate.

Finally, let me repeat that I am very much in favor of making sure that women academics are adequately represented on WP, and I have above given a list (clearly incomplete!) of women who are likely to satisfy the notability criteria but do not have pages. If the goal is to adequately represent women academics on WP, I believe that it is preferable to create pages for women academics that at least have a fair chance of satisfying at least one of the notability criteria. Of the nine criteria given on WP:PROF the person of this page satisfies not one. PlatoAristotle ( talk) 00:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Sorry, User:Fae, didn't realize you created this one, but what the heck? An academic who is only a lecturer without even having a named chair? A list of personal publications? I didn't see any way this individual was going to make WP:ACADEMIC, and so sent it to CSD. Trout me if I am wrong!!! KDS4444 ( talk) 15:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes, I'm going to trout you. I created an analysis of In Our Time programmes at User:Fæ/sandbox, and I am in the slow process of thinking about which women academics do not have articles. It's a rich source as academics are only invited onto the programme if they have an interesting insight in their field and are recommended by other established academics to the production team. The article is under construction and I'm still looking around for more substantial sources. It may be that PROF is not met, but I would like a couple of days grace, not just 3 hours after creation.

I'm unsure what is meant by "personal publications". All publications are written by the author, though these are all peer reviewed and published by academic publishers.

P.S. I'm sure you are aware that we are very short on articles about British women academics, especially in the field of history. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 16:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Fair enough, and I was not aware of the specific shortage of British women academics in the field of history, though I am aware of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red project and acknowledge its importance. We don't usually give articles in the article namespace more than about 30 minutes to pull themselves together before considering them for deletion, as draft space is a safer space for the development of articles which aren't quite ready for full article status and which don't have the material they need yet to stand on their own. What I meant by a list of "personal publications" is that you appear to have listed the things she has published— this ends up making the article look like a résumé rather than an encyclopedia entry. Also, I have on occasion come across new articles that really ARE nothing more than résumés for non-notable people, and they invariably contain a list of that person's publications. I understand that you are not using these publications to cite the article's subject, but they were a flag to me, along with the other evidence of not meeting WP:ACADEMIC, of a likely non-notable personage. Anyhow, if she ain't ready for full public scrutiny, I'd move 'er over to draft space while you continue to work on her and then throw 'er up here when she can face all the music. It'd save you having to defend the article and me having to consider it for deletion, which would be a win-win, yes? Also, are you aware that as an experienced editor you can be given the right to have your articles bypass the new pages queue? (which also keeps them from getting shot at prematurely though you'd still be expected to only put articles in the article namespace once they are fully developed and ready for the public). I consider you to be such an editor, of course, which just added to my confusion this time. Anyhow, good luck with the piece! Cheers! KDS4444 ( talk) 10:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Fæ: as you know we have no current image to associate with this article, which is a flaw...

...behold, however, the email I got from Dr. Stattler this morning: "Dear KDS: Thanks for your e-mail and for the work you have put into this. I am happy to upload a photo that does not have any copyright restrictions if the article does indeed go ahead (I have read the “talk” section, which is why I use this conditional). In that case I would also be happy to provide links to papers, the Vienna Diplomatic Academy Hall of Fame, etc. if needed. Best, Barbara

Fæ, Let me know your thoughts! KDS4444 ( talk) 15:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC) reply

That's kind of Sattler. Interestingly BBC IOT take photographs of all participants, but as far as I know don't publish them. If anyone is going to the BBC events this month they may want to ask about the archive of photos.

As nobody is pursuing deletion, I don't think the article is at risk of deletion now. My understanding of WP:PROF is that Sattler's editorial role for The Philosophical Quarterly and Fellowships should be sufficient to consider the article stable. -- Fæ ( talk) 19:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC) reply