Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyllis Bolds

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. Given the overwhelming majority of "keep" !votes, I don't see any reason to draw this out any longer. Randykitty (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Phyllis Bolds

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Phyllis Bolds (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)

Fails WP:GNG, as well as the WP:SOLDIER and WP:NPROF SNGs. Subject had a college degree in physics and subsequently master degrees in computer science and management. She worked for the US Air force for her entire career, and authored a number of technical reports (with very low citation counts - gScholar has them at 1). My WP:BEFORE doesn't bring up much in terms of sourcing. In terms of sourcing in the article: (numbering in relation to this revision)

• ref1 - photo collage by local artist. 262 word summary of career.
• ref2, ref4,ref5 , ref11 - United States Air Force PR mentioning Bolds (either in singular or in the context of her daughter and granddaughter).
• ref3 - local WRGT-TV segment on the Bold family and how 3 generations work at the air base. mainly an interview, so not independent. Local nature is also not significant.
• ref6, ref7, ref8 - technical air force reports authored by the subject. Not independent of the subject, nor is the subject of this article the topic of these reports.
• ref9 -local movie listing for Hidden Figures (in which our subject does not appear AFAICT). The listing describes our subject as a local example for a hidden figure. Not significant, not in depth, and probably not reliable either.
• ref10 - funeral home obit - not independent (family), not significant due to localized nature.

In short - far from WP:SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Icewhiz (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:PROF, WP:SOLDIER, and WP:GNG. The sources justd ont exist, nor do the accomplishments that generate such attention in WP:RSes. Remind page creator, whose face page states: "I use wikipedia to upload the biographies of women, black and minority ethnic and LGBTQ+ scientists who are contributing/ have contributed hugely to science and engineering but haven't had the attention that they deserve... I try and make biography page a day." that we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Of course it is true that women were once denied the opportunity to become scientists. It does not, however, follow that we can RIGHT this GREAT WRONG by creating a series of article about non -notable women who worked in labs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as to stand alone article as fails WP:PROF, WP:SOLDIER, and WP:GNG. However, she could be briefly mentioned on Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit bomber article page, if RS cited info that is noteworthy is found. Kierzek (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:GNG. Women and black people have historically been passed over in many accounts. Great interest in these people was aroused by the book and film Hidden Figures. Redressing a lack of articles on them is not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but countering Wikipedia:Systemic bias, which is the whole purpose of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  Which sources in particular establish GNG here? That there may be an interest in this type of biography doesn't mean this particular biography has coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep She is obviously notable within a certain sphere. Is she notable for Wikipedia? There are not many successful black woman physicists from her era so the bar for inclusion is much lower. Notability criteria are designed to be flexible and subjective (what is "significant" coverage?), we need to keep context in mind - significance unique to this case. Systemic bias exists not only on Wikipedia but in the wider world where we get our sources from - we can do better by being conscious of these biases the lack of coverage and reading a little bit between the lines. I disagree with the noms characterization of many of the sources. -- GreenC 16:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  Your arguement runs counter to Wikipedia policy - we do not lower the bar by race/ethnicity. In this case we do not have even a single high quality independent in depth source. With which sources in particular do you disagree with my characterization of, and why? Icewhiz (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  The only thing that confers notability is sources—if she were notable as one of the first African-American astrophysicists, then we would have secondary sources stating as much. This whole approach of finding primary sources that supposedly show someone to be notable and then alleging that they are notable because of their background without sources to support that contention is just WP:OR. I'm seeing a lot of these articles popping up by the same creator that are extremely light on any actual substance, notability, or achievements as we'd expect for any typical Wiki article, rely heavily on primary and other dubious sources, but have all the other usual trappings of a regular article (photo, infobox, well-written prose). This does not hold up to scrutiny. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The wording of GNG is designed to be flexible otherwise it would state that each article must have 5 sources to national-level newspapers. We don't set bars like that, we keep it flexible for the context in each case. I've explained why I think this article is acceptable for the wording of GNG, what the context is and why it matters. You are free to disagree with that opinion, but that doesn't mean it runs counter to policy (GNG is a guideline anyway). -- GreenC 20:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Very few women and even fewer African-American women were in the American Air Force Research Laboratory in the 1950s. Her bio has been covered by independent reliable sources (including the the air base, lab and local news). Jesswade88 (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  The airbase and air force lab - her employer - are not independent (nor subject to editorial oversight - this is essentially a PR release). A local news item (on her family - not just her - and mainly a short interview) is not significant coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  A PR release for what purpose? To 'promote' a former employee who is dead? Jesswade88 (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  I do not concur with the characterisation of the the Dayton Daily News, which is notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article and serves a metropolitan area of nearly 800,000 people as being a local newspaper. [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  DDN is a local news source - next to the airbase - and it is an interview with Bolds and her family - so not independent. Why is the Air Force releasing PR on this? Perhaps to promote the image of the air force. Or perhaps due to Bolds' family (daughter and granddaughter) who works at the same airbase (who also appear in these PR pieces). And all told - it isn't all that many PR pieces.Icewhiz (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not sure where you got the idea that a daily newspaper covering a major city is somehow not independent secondary coverage; but you are mistaken. GMG^talk 21:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  Interviews are generally not independent of the subjects of the interview, and generally are not counted towards notability. www.wpafb.af.mil and afresearchlab.com are quite obviously not independent as well. Icewhiz (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  A news story in which they "quote people" is not the same thing as citing the transcript of an interview. Sources from the US government may not be the gold standard on topics relating to the US government, but we certainly do not in practice treat them the same as press releases by businesses. If you doubt that, then I can get you a good deal on a few thousand bios on US members of Congress machine generated from their official congressional bios. Beyond that, there is exactly zero in policy that devalues the use of local sources in biographies, in as much as a daily paper in a major city counts as a local source. GMG^talk 22:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• The Dayton newspaper article is not only local, it was written by the "public affairs" officer of Bold's employer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• We should not be using using Churnalism as "sources". Any citations to an article written by the public affairs officer of the subject's employer fails to meet WP:RS and ought to be deleted. XavierItzm (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

*Keep Passes WP:GNG. --Nonmodernist (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC) See my update below.

• Keep The article passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - "passes GNG" !votes should be discounted unless !voters demonstrate that multiple, in-depth, reliable, independent sources actually exist. So far - we have a couple of local news items - which is far from the bar we generally apply for GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree GNG-based !votes should be discounted. What should be discounted is the nom lobbying the closer. -- GreenC 15:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Absent a rationale - in this case actually producing 3-4 in-depth independent sources - this is WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE/WP:VAGUEWAVE/WP:SOURCESEXIST - which is only a tad better than some WP:ILIKEIT !votes here. People asserting GNG - should pony up and present sources actually establishing it. Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

GNG is a rationale. No one is required to debate about it. -- GreenC 16:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

It is required that someone present 3 or 4 items of WP:SIGCOV when claiming that a subject meets WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

GNG says "There is no fixed number of sources required". GNG is a guideline. I've seen articles pass with ZERO sources. Stop creating high bars with fictitious rules. -- GreenC 19:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The number of INDEPENDENT sources that have been found to date is ZERO. Government reports aside, we have precisely 2 local news stories with content by her employer's PR dept.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

At this point you are pounding the table but the SNOW is so deep it doesn't budge. -- GreenC 21:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I have beaten the bushes looking for SIGCOV. He name brings up nothing except a single press release in a Proquest new archive search. Nothing at all in a gBooks search [2]. The "best" source now on the page is an article in the Dayton paper written by the public affairs officer of her employer. The rest are PRIMARY, or unusable stuff like an obit published by the funeral parlor. I am always open to changing my opinion at AfD - when someone brings sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

You misspelled her name; here is the gBooks search[3]. It has some of her technical publication and work at conferences. StrayBolt (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

My error. Even with the correct spelling, that publication record is far too meager to meet WP:PROF. and note that the proquest news search was spelled correctly. We need WP:SIGCOV, and nobody has found it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Little cited - miles away from meeting WP:NPROF(1) - a few scattered (less than 10 all told) citations to very technical and low-level documents. In terms of GNG - we have USAF PR - and not all that much of it. Icewhiz (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:GNG. Article appears to have been updated with more independent reliable sources--see especially news story by Adam Aaro (an Emmy-award winning journo) and the clipping from Dayton Daily News. Bolds's inclusion as a subject in the Visual Voices exhibit ["These artists have researched prominent African-American’s (living or deceased) who have made a mark in their field and are role models for the community."] also proves notability. GNG does not list a minimum number of required sources; furthermore, WP:NEXIST says "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Finally, what proof is there that the technical reports she authored are "low-level"? Her work on aircraft dynamics relative to shock and airplane vibration, especially as it relates to the B-2 Stealth Bomber, seem pretty important to me. --Nonmodernist (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• the Adam Aaron story ran on the LOCAL network affiliate, and the ending ("For even more about this story, you can read the article written up by Wright-Patterson Air Force Base "here." And for more information about the base's educational outreach office which is a resource for K-12 STEM education throughout the Air Force and the Department of Defense, you can click "here.") certainly gives the appearance of having been part of a PR campaign by Bolds' employer. The article in the Dayton paper was actually written by the ppublic afairs dept. of Bold's employer and the Dayton art exhibit are also local.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory, can you point me to where GNG rules out local news sources as establishing notability? What is the threshold for a "local" paper? What size locality must a newspaper serve for it be considered reliable? Is the New York Times ruled out as a source about New Yorkers because it is the local NYC paper? Ditto, is the Washington Post ruled out as a source of info on anyone living in D.C.? --Nonmodernist (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, when such material runs in the "Metro," "Local" or "Regional" editions of those papers. Although, in Bolds' case, it is not even clear that the article on local TV is INDEPENDENT; the article in the Dayton paper is clearly written by her employer. I am genuinely willing to be persuaded here. I have personally created dozens or pages about notable women. But my searches are not finding INDEPENDENT, SIGCOV. And no else has found coverage that passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The issue here is not who wrote the article - often we have no byline to tell us - but that there was editorial oversight in selecting the article as worthy of publication, and in checking its veracity, which is what we mean by an independent, reliable source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Was there? I don't see any substantial discussing on DDN in RSN, I think it is rather poor form for a newspaper to run a piece written by a PR person (military, government, or commercial) - it is a rather strong indication that the DDN is falling in form (structural changes in past decade) - and that it is not able to fund its own reporter to chew and writeup the PR release under their own byline. Sources reprinting or accepting PR submissions (not clearly marked as promotional content) - is an indication of low quality. Regardless - even if DDN were reliable, this is not independent - the airbase PR person, as Bolds herself were she to write about herself on DDN, are not independent of Bolds.Icewhiz (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep As was already pointed out, the farce of local sources has nothing to do with notability with regard to biographies, and for better or worse, US government publications are regularly treated as reliable sources. There's enough to write an article with, and that's the only part of GNG that matters, and the only part of GNG that we should be measuring. GNG is not a measure of importance; it's a measure of whether a policy compliant article can be written. GMG^talk 00:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Note that only 2 news articles about Bolds have been found; both are LOCAL one is certainly not INDEPENDENT and the other appears not to be INDEPENDENT. And, no, I do not consider Wikipedia's standards on Biographies to be a "farce."E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• An essay != "Wikipedia's standards on Biographies". GMG^talk 10:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• "local" in this context, refers to the fact that biographies where sourcing is entirely local are rarely - if ever - deemed notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Please make time to read, or to re-read, WP:BASIC. The issue here is that coverage in those two local news stories, apart from being local, is neither INDEPENDENT nor SECONDARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep A quick search for sources shows in-depth obituaries and articles such as here, here, here and here. Easily enough to write an article, all of these have been published by professional organisations (who don't write about any old person). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• The sources suggested by Ritchie are:

• A page on her employer's website [https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1778460/the-life-times-and-legacy-of-phyllis-bolds
• Another page on her employer's website [4]
• The local Fox News story taht appears to be based on a press release by her employer and has been discussed above, and
• a legacy.com obit. These are not INDEPENDENT sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Your edit summary says "we have rules". This is incorrect. We are a consensus-based encyclopedia, not rules based. See core pillar policy WP:BURO. You continually have distorted how wiki operates and wikilawyered throughout the AFD. It's OK to cite previous general consensus findings like GNG, but not to try and invalidate other people's consensus opinions! It shows a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works. Seriously, read BURO. -- GreenC 01:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Unless someone can prove that Bolds wrote the content of the sources or had any sort of influence in what went in them, they are independent. The Wright-Patterson Air Force Base doesn't write about any old person. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Please take a closer look at WP:INDEPENDENT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The WPAFB is a government organisation. Now while one argue that some goverment things are biased and stupid (*cough* Walls *cough* Mexico border *cough), I cannot see any way that a USAF base could somehow be promoting itself or Bolds by writing about her. It makes no sense. That would be like calling NASA an unreliable and biased source for Buzz Aldrin. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a somewhat unusual case of a person who was trained up to do work of national significance without leaving her hometown. Being the only woman at a symposium at the USAF Academy, and African American as well, was quite a achievement in 1970, as that particular institution's challenges with incorporating women have persisted even in recent years. It is a national level honor to be cited as a trailblazer in af.mil; we also note that her work for the Air Force was considered "substantial" and "instrumental." Oliveleaf4 (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It's also important to point out that the arguments above, which suggest that the USAF is equivalent to a corporate employer, have been made in the past, but did not take hold, back when General McPeak changed the USAF uniform to something more similar to a corporate suitcoat. Equating top level USAF to corporate management did not receive ongoing acceptance, as the people responsible for the USAF consider their work to be a very serious mission, not just a "job" with an "employer." Oliveleaf4 (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of passing WP:Prof. Arguments for WP:GNG seem based on special pleading and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC).

That's rather disingenuous. I wouldn't know Phyllis Bolds from a hole in the ground personally, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to write an article about her. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "righting great wrongs," maintaining a hostile working environment towards women and people of color appears to remain an overall priority for this online community; what the WMF refuses to acknowledge is that that's the way WMF has permitted its "community" to develop under its terms of use. Readers might well view this particular woman's achievement as WP:SOLDIER differently after getting acquainted with the genre of contemporary US female military memoirs. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is a subsection of WP:Tendentious editing, it refers to a pattern of editing by an editor, the first sentence says "taken as a whole". It applies to "problem editors" who might be sanctioned. It does not apply to AfD cases like this and if you think it does then open an ANI against everyone here otherwise stop accusing people of bad behavior just because you don't like how they !voted. -- GreenC 15:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per Ritchie333. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Clear example of redressing a lack of articles. As others have noted above, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is misused in this context. That essay is about fringe theories and tendentious editing, not about countering Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Clear evidence of GNG plus sources are reliable and of quality. No "special pleading" or anything else. Just as we acknowledge that a lot of notable people in the pre-internet age may not have easily accessible online sources that demonstrate notability, we also need to acknowledge that people in underrepresented groups did notable things that were mostly mentioned with far less detail than those of people in the dominant culture. Montanabw^(talk) 18:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep My start on WP predates the notability guidelines and I remember them being proposed and developed. It is therefore natural for me not to see WP:GNG as rules that are to be obeyed but as suggested criteria to be mulled over. The guidelines are intended to serve a purpose – to try and be reasonably sure articles meet our content policies as explained at WP:Notability#Why we have these requirements. It looks to me that this article does indeed meet these policies pretty well. If applying the criteria strictly line-by-line leads to a "fail" (I don't know whether or not it does) then, in my view, the guidelines are not giving good advice in this case. Thincat (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Some of us are strongly committed to applying the same rules to all individuals, regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity. It hasn't stopped me from creating dozens of articles about notable women, and notable members of ethnic and racial minorities. My two most recent articles are Gadeer Mreeh and Nabila El-Bassel. The argument being made by a series of editors above is that Wikipedia should require men to actually be notable, but we should let the girls qualify by an easier set of rules because otherwise so few girls would make the cut, is not only incorrect, it is appalling.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for showing how hard it is to write articles. Your first article is a very public facing person being a news anchor and a politician and your 3 RS are a tiny article and two interviews. The second is an academic and the only source you provided is their own bio page on their employer's website. StrayBolt (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• You made me wonder what my first article was, turns out it was about a minor art museum. My 7th article was the first time I wrote about a notable women, a group of remarkable women, actually, Kalo Shops. Soon after that I wrote up artist Barbara Hines, singer Nasreen Qadri, museum director Susan Henshaw Jones, and dozens more since. It often takes me a while to get around to building a new page out. There are so many, many women who meet our notability standards and lack pages. But there have to be sources to support notability - or I don't start the page no matter how much I admire someone.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry for the confusion and thank you for the hundreds of articles you have created. I was referring to the two articles you had just mentioned and created, Gadeer Mreeh and Nabila El-Bassel. StrayBolt (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• E.M.Gregory. Before commenting here I had noticed that you have created many articles about women. It takes me ages to write an article and I haven't done so many as you but I also put in an effort, though I suspect I have created more articles about men than women. That is how the world was and I tend to have written on historical topics. I think too often we delete on notability grounds articles that have been written carefully and referenced in detail (like this one), albeit to sources that can be argued to be weak according our criteria. Even if this article had been about a man I think I'd have !voted keep. However, I only found this article because it had been flagged as being about a woman – I don't have the inclination to wade though the mass of AFDs generally looking for the rare article that is not vapid. I think you are wholly entitled to apply the same "rules" to articles on whatever topic but that seems to me to be simply a choice you make and not one that is demanded of editors. Thincat (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete for the time being. I think it is pretty clear she fails WP:PROF, and we are discussing whether she passes WP:GNG. For academics, WP:GNG is actually typically difficult to pass, since one needs to demonstrate sufficient in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, and very few independent sources are interested in academics, even if they happen to be black women academics. For the moment, I do not see such coverage here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Notable and well sourced WP:GNG Lubbad85 (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Lubbad85, can you point to 3 or 4 INDEPENDENT, WP:RS that support notability? I ask, because to date no editor has been able to identify such sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - egregious case of attempting to pad up a subject whom, alas!, is not notable. The padding consists of adding entire papers written up by the subject, but which are either not cited by anyone or having less than 10 cites (lifetime grand total for the person for all papers), i.e., failing WP:NPROF. What does that leave? A churnalism article written for the local newspaper by the public relations officer of the subject's employer, a family interview, a series of PR/recruitment efforts including "honoring" by the subject's employer whose children are current employees (but note: not actual medals nor any genuine, formal recognition), and a paid obituary at Thomasfunerals.com. Clearly fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV and lack of WP:INDEPENDENT. All special pleadings and wishes to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS ought to be dismissed out of hand. XavierItzm (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment A suggestion. Everyone who !voted delete has created articles that have these reference problems still (I checked). Correction, one article doesn’t have these problems because it doesn’t even have any references. Instead of spending time on the next AfD, spend time fixing your articles. And if you don’t want to do that, then Draftify or PROD or AfD them, if that is what you prefer. I know we all have our biases blinding us so we might have trouble seeing the issues. Feel free to ask for help if you can’t find the problems, I can flag them. In the programming world, it is good to have people find and fix their own bugs, for multiple reasons. Show that you care about these issues by fixing them yourself now. StrayBolt (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• @StrayBolt: -> User:GreenMeansGo/Contributionism GMG^talk 14:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Am I the only one around who finds this reasoning absolutely unacceptable?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• It is not "reasoning". I'm not arguing for anyone to change their decision, there is no "WP:". I am only suggesting future actions on other articles (not AfDs), based on what was argued. StrayBolt (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• (I !voted above) I think as a remark it is invalid and inappropriate and so should be disregarded by the closer but I dare say it should be allowed to remain as a comment. Thincat (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• StrayBolt, an editor who exhibits ignorance of WP policies and standards, may be referring to my recent creation of a stub on Nabila El-Bassel, who already held an endowed chair at a major university where she was just made University Professor. As I said on the talk page when I crated the stub, I hope that someone in her filed of study will improve the article. But notability is not in quesiton because she passes WP:PROF, just as Gadeer Mreeh, a sourced stub Straybolt objects to, passes POLITICIAN because she was elected to a seat in a national legislature. Straybolt needs to learn to read the rules.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep The sources provided are adequate and so the topic passes WP:BASIC. The article is well-written and so the material should not be deleted per our policies including WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Andrew, can you point to 3 or 4 INDEPENDENT, WP:RS that support notability? I ask, because to date no editor has been able to identify such sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  I see you're hoping that badgering will somehow change the meaning of WP:INDEPENDENT. It's already been pointed out that the Dayton Daily News and Fox News are independent sources. So too is the USAF, which has no financial or legal relationship with an ex-employee. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• The article in question was written and by and appeared over the byline of a public affairs officer working for Bolds' employer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Definitely passes WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:NPROF, WP:NACADEMIC, etc.--PATH SLOPU 13:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree that there is no evidence in the article of her passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG, and that the "arguments [...] seem based on special pleading and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS". I'm not at all opposed to biographies on female scientists, as long as they are in fact notable, but we don't create articles on people simply because of their gender. As E.M. Gregory noted, we can't "RIGHT this GREAT WRONG by creating a series of article[s] about non-notable women who worked in labs." --Tataral (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep because:
  1. She didn't just work on "cool toys", this was cutting-edge military technology at the time: B-52 "Stratofortress" jet bomber in 1961 [5], C-133 transport 1962 [6], F-102 jet–the first supersonic interceptor–1962 [7], a 1963 paper about the general techniques (I think, I don't understand science) [8] [9], UH-1C helicopter 1974 [10], F-111 nuclear bomber 1982 [11] (published by the Naval Research Laboratory, a different branch of the military), F-15 jet fighter 1984 [12], a 4-year report on the facility 1982 [13]... She wrote so many reports, in 1987 they had her write a guide to writing reports. [14]
  2. ...and let's not forget she also worked on the Stealth Bomber [15], which might be the #3 most significant piece of military technology behind the nuclear missile and the aircraft carrier. That kind of classified work won't be reported in newspapers, but it doesn't mean the work–and the people who did it–aren't notable.
  3. Satisfies WP:GNG and WP:42 with multiple significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, with a combination of: Fox, Dayton Daily News, and W-P [16] [17] But wait! W-P is her employer and the Dayton piece is really just a press release from her employer! True, but she worked on top-secret military aircraft in the 1960s–80s; for example, note the declassification in her reports about the OH-6A helicopter (1975) [18] and AH-1G helicopter (1977) [19]. For government scientists (like astronauts at NASA and nuclear physicists at ORNL), it will often be the case that the primary–and sometimes only–source of information will be the government. "No firm rules" means we should be flexible in such cases. After all, if a person walks on the moon, do we object that the coverage of it is all based on a NASA press conference?
  4. So I !vote to keep the article about the black woman physicist who worked on the stealth bomber. That's notable. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a screenplay to write... Leviv ich 23:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  These kinds of votes should be dismissed outright. It's not a Wikipedia editor's job to assess the significance or importance of something if it is not stated by a secondary source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  Fox, Dayton Daily News, and the two W-P articles are secondary sources. WP:Secondary: "Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources." Leviv ich 01:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  Aren't independent of the subject (connected to employer PR - who has image, budget, and recruiting advocacy to do) - which is required for WP:SIGCOV. As for working on aircraft projects (some secret) - these projects have tens of thousands of engineers working on them. Even if we place Bolds (with domain knowledge in vibration) in the top 5% or even 1% of engineers in the project (without evidence) - that would not be notable - there are hundreds of auch engineers - they all author long technical reports (a project such as the B-2 or F-15 literally has reports in aggregate hundreds of thouaands or even million pages long). While lead aircraft designers (the engineer that heads the entire project) are often notable (due to SIGCOV) - career aerospace engineers in the military of industry usually aren't. The B-2 is cool - however that is NOTINHERITED to the multitude of engineers involved in the 23 billion (1980s dollars) R&D project.Icewhiz (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  I'm having a hard time following. On the one hand you say she was no one special just another employee among millions of federal workers. But you ignore the government sources which say otherwise, they clearly thought she was someone special - this is documented. So your entire thesis is based on ignoring those government sources. But as Levivich said, "No firm rules" means we should be flexible in such cases. It will often be the case that reliable sources of information will be from the government due to the secrecy of the work she was involved with. You have no response to this other than the optional guideline SIGCOV without addressing the core policy 5P5 raised. As for WP:NOTINHERITED, this essay (non-consensus opinion) is often cited but rarely understood. Please read the first sentence: "Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject." Clearly this does not apply here as there are many sources. One can be notable for being associated with something important so long as sourcing exists. The sourcing shows she was more than just another employee among millions of federal workers, she stood out from the others and was recognized as such, she is the definition of notable. -- GreenC 06:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  Her employer is not independent. Even if we were to accept that she was an expert (in the airforce) in a particular niche (aircraft vibration) - that is not grounds for notability. The US airforce (and the federal government at large) has many experts in many niche topics. As almost all we have is her employer, who is not a critical source, has recruiting, local image, & budgeting concerns,and is not independent - developing a WP:NPOV page is impossible - our page essentially repeats USAF advocacy possibly misstating Blods' role as well as possibly misstating how the USAF treated and treats its employees. SIGCOV stems from V and NPOV - and in this case the NPOV issue is very clear and we also fail WP:NOTADVOCACY - Wikipedia is not a USAF recruting poster.Icewhiz (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  Fox is independent even though it's an interview. It mixes in-own-voice reporting with quotes. Byline is a Fox reporter [20]. So that's one. The other three aren't independent, but look at it this way: we have no independent source that a man walked on the moon in 1969 or that there are people on the International Space Station right now. Every single reliable source establishing those facts are simply repeating what government employees said. I don't think they've ever sent a Fox reporter up there to verify. The same arguments about NASA's motivations of "image, budget and recruiting advocacy" are used by fake-moon-landing conspiracy theorists. But we write articles about it anyway. If we trust NASA to report about astronauts, why not trust USAF to report about USAF research? Like GreenC says, out of tens of thousands, USAF singled out this person and called her "exceptional" [21]. A black woman physicist working on top secret military planes in 1955 in a still-segregated United States, considered "exceptional" by the Air Force? That's notable. "Worthy of note." Worth writing about in the encyclopedia. Leviv ich 06:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  We have independent sources on the moon landing (and the moon is quite viewable from Earth with modern telescopes) - we most certainly do not trust NASA PR - we do trust independent reliable sources covering NASA (who generally confirm the moon landings). US military advertising/promotion is not a reasonable source. The US military included African American during segregation - see Military history of African Americans. The 1944 US Army documentary The Negro Soldier would not be a reasonable source (and it, at least, was directed by Frank Capra and written by Carlton Moss - in service of the War Department - and not by internal USAF PR people here).Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  Employee profile pages and interviews are both WP:PRIMARY sources, which do not contribute to notability. That applies to both the government employee page and the Fox interview. WP:SECONDARY sources are what determine notability, and we cannot have a page that is completely devoid of secondary coverage, no matter how hard some editors are willing to push an agenda and overlook policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  Your just repeating your position over and over. We get it but still doesn't address what Levivich said which is perfectly acceptable under our policies - our policies are more flexible than you understand. You are also assuming Bad Faith ("pushing an agenda") which shuts down having any conversation with you. See WP:AGF. -- GreenC 15:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  Wikied is also confusing primary/secondary with independent/non-independent, even though this distinction is made in the very policy that Wikied is linking to (WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY), which I quoted above. It's also stated in the explanatory supplements Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources, Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources, and Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. If that's not enough, there's an essay about it called WP:Party and person–this is the essay linked-to in our WP:OR policy. These four sources [22] [23] [24] [25] are secondary sources. A source need not be independent to be secondary. Leviv ich 15:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  Icewhiz, is this [26] SIGCOV of "man walks on moon"? 100% of the information in that article comes from the government. The difference (for me) between the moon landing and WWII propaganda is that in WWII there were independent reporters on the battlefield, so we don't need to rely on gov't reporting. But when it comes to astronauts and stealth bombers, we do need to rely on the gov't. Leviv ich 15:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  A single source is never SIGCOV (multiple sources are required), and the day-of reporting of the NYT would be WP:PRIMARYNEWS. However, as made clear in this historiography review article: Launius, Roger D. "Interpreting the Moon Landings: Project Apollo and the Historians." History and Technology 22.3 (2006): 225-255. - there is no lack of top-notch academic RSes covering the moon landings. Contrast this with Bolds - where the scant sources are primarily PR from the USAF (and even that - on the local base and lab level). Government PR/propaganda/releases do not establish SIGCOV - you need independent reporting. Icewhiz (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Jealous bros or WP:IDONTLIKEIT...should not cry, She is clearly passes WP:BIO, WP:NPROF and WP:NACADEMIC MyanmarBBQ (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "jealous bros"? I accidentally have a Wikipedia article (which I never touched) because I pass NPROF. She pretty clearly fails NPROF. GNG is up to debate here (whether sources are independent and/or reliable).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  Just i see... some debates base on the WP:IDONTLIKE "Black Woman" as above .MyanmarBBQ (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  Votes followed by obnoxious, empty justifications are pretty worthless to the discussion. This should be disregarded. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  please note I'm from Myanmar, not US I don't care about Black and White! IMO, she definitely passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Thanks MyanmarBBQ (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:BIO, specificially "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". An African-American physicist at a military research lab during that era is unusual enough to qualify. I've seen numerous comments above that convinve me that the subject is interesting enough to merit inclusion. --mikeu ^talk 21:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• There are no secondary sources that call attention to the subject. This is the threshold we go by. You should at least try to read up on this very basic tenet of WP before you cast votes. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've been reviewing WP policy for nearly 15 years.[27] I simply disagree with your interpretation. Your attempt, and others, to discredit good faith assessments of this article by flooding the discussion with comments is disruptive. I'm seeing three editors who (by edit count and added text) have added 50% to the page history.[28] This is neither a vote nor is it discussion where the number of bytes added "wins" - please stop, --mikeu ^talk 14:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm persuaded there's enough to meet the essence of WP:WHYN, i.e. to write a reliable entry for the reader. It does not improve the encyclopedia to delete this. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. There are sources. The arguments trying to show they are not independent are, at times, desperate. Victuallers (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• AfD is NOT a vote and NOT an opinion poll. It is a discussion about sourcing. We need examples of WP:SIGCOV in order to decide to keep an article. Opinions only become useful to this discussion when the editor expressing an opinion like "I'm persuaded," or "there are sources" lists the specific sources that constitute WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• You are wrong. AfD is not about sourcing nor is it even about WP:NOTE. It is a common rationale, but a guideline only, people can !vote based on anything they want. See WP:BURO and WP:5P5. -- GreenC 14:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep, per WP:IAR. Removing an article about a woman scientist from Wikipedia seems hardly a priority while there are 72 entries in Category:Japanese female adult models or 192 in Category:American female adult models, with much worse sourcing than this. Checking those out and nominating some for deletion would be more productive than spending community time on this AfD. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• some editors Oppose other keep votes base on WP:IDONTLIKE... Shameless🤮🤮🤢 . MyanmarBBQ (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• IAR is basically WP:5P5 and WP:BURO which others have also raised, this is not a unique sentiment in this AfD and a valid rationale. That K.e.coffman also points out the large amount of trivial stuff elsewhere is a statement of fact that no one would disagree with. He is making a Good Faith editorial commentary about misplaced priorities, a sentiment I also agree with. -- GreenC 14:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Suppose I started an article for every one of the Women in Bletchley Park who worked as a code breaker, who is recorded in government documents and who and who was later the subject of a human interest story in her local paper? Or every woman in the Air Transport Auxiliary, or every PhD level mathmatician who spent her career at the Social Security Administration back when the universities ony hired boys? Would this be OK if we limited such pages to pilots and mathmaticians who were the subject of a human interest story in a local newspaper or alumnae magazine? Because that is what the sourcing on Bolds amounts to: A human interest story in her local paper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• See slippery slope. It is a logic fallacy. Your argument doesn't allow for a middle ground, that some people might be notable. It supposes that if we do this article, we will do ALL such articles, with no reasonable understanding for a middle ground or allowing for specifics in each case. Certainly some of those people you mention will be notable, but not all. That is what we are here to determine, the specifics of this individual case. -- GreenC 14:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I've pity to someone! very jealous here should not cry please....(Note:I don't tell by name) MyanmarBBQ (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets GNG --Rosiestep (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It's borderline, and I'm sure we'd all be happier if more sources were supplied, but I think the sources in the article are adequate to meet WP:N and WP:V and demonstrate that there should be an article. (Clearly some other editors disagree and think the sources don't pass that threshold—they've been replying to almost every 'keep' comment to make their position clear—but that's why we have this process...) -sche (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep This was a tough call. The sourcing is definitely closer to "adequate" than to "stellar". Ultimately, though, our coverage of the history of physics would be worse off without this article. That's honestly how I see it; everything else is wiki-lawyering on top. XOR'easter (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep We won't be able to tick every box on the wikilawyer checklist until a whole lot of primary material on secret government projects becomes available to the people who write secondary sources. In the meantime, it looks safe to presume notability, and this article improves the encyclopedia. I could quote WP:IAR, but I'd rather quote Maya Angelou: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time". Bakazaka (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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.