Talk:Helen Moore

Was this necessary?

David Eppstein, there is a grand total of two articles with the name Helen Moore. As per MOS:DAB: "Disambiguation pages are non-article pages designed to help a reader find the right Wikipedia article when different topics could be referred to by the same search term". Bar the nurse article, who is notable enough to be created, I struggle to see how a list of every Helen Moore mentioned on Wikipedia is really necessary. "I'm not convinced this subject is the primary topic": The choice was between a head of an Oxford college or a mathematician with dubious notability? Yes, the Oxford scholar article is currently a sub, but that doesn't effect who is the primary topic. To me, this is a mess of page that serves no purpose, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 19:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

There are 11 articles that discuss people named Helen Moore, two of them bluelinked, at least two more (the nurse-matron-in-chief and the K-state dean of women) plausibly independently notable, and another two whose names are included in the title of their subject (the two Moore Houses). To me, that's easily enough. And in fact, while working through all of this, I discovered that two of the previous incoming article links to Helen Moore of Oxford were actually to the nurse and the baseball player, exactly the sort of problem that a dab page should be used to fix. So yes, I think it's necessary. We're not even listing another one, Helen J. Moore, who probably also passes WP:PROF for highly cited publications on diet and cardiovascular disease, nor are we listing the Helen E. Moore mentioned on Sarah T. Hughes, who appears to pass WP:NPOL [1]. And as for whether the Oxford head of college is the primary topic of the article: the question is heavily distorted by all the incoming infobox links. Without those, the Oxford Helen Moore has only two or three. And as for "dubious notability": no. The mathematical Moore clearly passes both WP:GNG for the in-depth coverage about her and WP:PROF for the SIAM fellowship. You don't need to throw in ill-advised insults to living people to make your point, and her notability is not dubious. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, when I do a Google search, the meanings that Google seems to think of as primary for me are fashion brand helenmoore.com (not my topic but maybe there are enough news hits to be notable), the Snapped episode (at the bottom of the list here), and some Australian serial killer whom we don't list. Then come your Oxford one and another academic who looks notable but whom we don't list (a retired sociologist with a named professorship in Nebraska). Probably your results will vary, but that result doesn't convince me that there is a primary topic (or that the Oxford Helen Moore is primary if there is one that is primary). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not insulting Helen Moore (mathematician) by saying her notability (as in "qualifying for a Wiki page) is dubious/doubtful. I must admit that the fellowship might satisfy WP:PROF, although that depends on whether the SIAM Fellowship satisfies "a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor". I'm all for having more articles created about notable women, but I don't see how she qualifies. On a side note, I'm not sure an essay written by a seventh grader is a reliable source.

If we are looking at which of the two would be the primary topic there are two considerations: usage ("highly likely to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term") and long-term significance ("substantially greater enduring notability"). If we are looking at incoming links, the mathematician has a single link, List of women in mathematics. A head of an Oxford college has enduring notability. I would also wonder why anyone would be searching for the mathematician? Its not my area, but it isn't clear from the article why she is notable: she does a job involving allied mathematics and she taught at a college (at what "rank" isn't stated).

Looking at the Helen Moore's who will never have an article: the Orange Roughies one is a cameo, the baseball one was a chaperone to the 1944 team, no one is going to be looking for a school via a headteacher from the 1960s, the namesake seems to have faded into history, the house probably falls under WP:PTM, etc. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 21:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

One could easily take the same tack to throw question on the Oxford professor's academic notability: she has no authored books (the ones listed in the article are all merely edited volumes), is only an associate professor, and has a title that is not at the level (head of whole university) demanded by WP:PROF. But I don't see the point of continuing that argument: they're both notable enough to keep, but that's not the issue here. If you don't understand that SIAM is a major society or that their fellowships are a selective honor, fine, but continuing to flaunt your ignorance of the subject and unwillingness to make any effort to learn is not a good look. I'm not arguing that the mathematician should be the primary topic, but you haven't made the case that the literary scholar should be either. My position is that there are enough different Helen Moore's, with none having clear enough primacy, that there should be no topic selected as primary. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Confusingly, it turns out that there's another Helen Moore sociologist, at Bath Spa [2]. Not mentioned in any Wikipedia article and doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF yet, so I'm leaving her off the dab page for now. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)