Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Ballard

Sarah Ballard

Sarah Ballard (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)

Non-notable postdoc in astronomy based on the WP:ACADEMIC criteria. She has written 7 first-authored papers, and, while being a solid publication rate, this is not particularly unusual for an early-career scientist. Her discovery of 4 extrasolar planets is also not sufficiently noteworthy, given that thousands of extrasolar planets have been discovered. Her postdoctoral-fellowship awards mentioned in the article, while nice on her CV, are not particularly important information to include in Wikipedia. OtterAM (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. OtterAM (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Good GS citation record in very highly cited field. Large author lists of papers make it difficult to assess extent of independent achievement. Off to a good start but as yet WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC).
• Delete. Looks like she's on track for eventually passing WP:PROF but WP:TOOSOON to be there yet (by citation counts or any other of the WP:PROF criteria). Note that the kind of named postdoctorate that she has is very different from the kind of named full professorship that WP:PROF#C5 would count as notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. With very few exceptions, post-docs are WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC).
• Delete, per above. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Keep WP:ACADEMIC states that it is "an alternative" to WP:GNG and independent of it. So a subject is notable if it meets either criterion. As Ballard has been shown to be the subject of substantial independent coverage at space.com, KIRO, CSNE and elsewhere, she passes the GNG notability test. Each delete argument above only considers the criteria of ACADEMIC and is therefore invalid and the article should be kept.

As a separate statement I find the willingness of the delete !voters to take this ill-considered action in the face of well-known systemic bias issues regarding Wikipedia coverage, in this case women scientists, to be dismaying. The article happens to have been created by me at a University of Washington/Cascadia Wikimedians sponsored event specifically set up to increase Wikipedia's coverage of women in the sciences. - Brianhe (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)