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. Star Mississippi 16:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Critchley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

There are no independent sources that I could find that would make this individual notable (nor does the article have any such sources), thank you Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Medicine, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, at least, is a pass of WP:PROF#C3. Likely some of the other fellowships also confer notability, and her Google Scholar profile shows high enough citations for a pass of #C1 as well. The nomination is faulty, because it only considers WP:GNG-based notability; PROF is an independent notability guideline that does not involve the amount of publicity the subject has obtained. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

not sure about...other fellowships also confer notability , IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per David Eppstein, PROF#C3. —siroχo 00:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh passes WP:PROF, and we have also counted FMedSci in the past. Citations in GS [1] are very strong (1826,792,768,716,666 and a further ~30 over 200) and also meet WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: FRSE is a clincher (have added a link to the RSE source as extra verification). The exhibition mentioned in the Herald source would be good too, but I can't actually find it in the online copy of the newspaper, sadly. Page no in the ref would have been helpful. But clearly notable. PamD 07:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thincat Thanks for finding the Herald source - I wasn't patient enough to zoom all the pages up and find that article! PamD 11:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, since meets PROF#C3. @Ozzie10aaaa, you are right that the other fellowships do not contribute to notability. As in many British societies they are a senior membership level that one applies for and pays higher dues. Often there is an Honorary Fellow level in those societies which does meet C3. However there was an independent source for the RSE fellowship in the article when it was nominated for deletion. The link was dead, as are many, since it was an http address and the society had converted to https addresses. That security change has caused a lot of dead links for us, so something to check before nominating. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

StarryGrandma Purely for clarity, I'd say FMedSci definitely also counts, as an honorary elected fellowship of the Academy of Medical Sciences, which also checks out with source (though wasn't in the article at time of nomination.) I probably should not have rolled the other fellowships up into one sentence. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict, like the US National Academy of Sciences, members of the Academy of Medical Sciences are elected for "exceptional contributions' as explained here, so definitely counts as meeting C3. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Stunning pass of WP:Prof#C1 on GS record. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Some of the highly-cited papers are highly coauthored, but enough are not to give confidence of WP:NPROF C1. I also believe the WP:NPROF C3 case. Time to close this as a WP:SNOW keep? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per those above. Sufficiently productive as an academic to merit an article. BD2412 T 02:50, 6 October 2023 (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.