Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonny Kim


 * 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. It's clear from this discussion that there is no consensus to delete or redirect all of them. Individual nominations can be brought to AFD if required but there is no point in discussing 12 completely different BLPs who just happen to be selected for the same program.  So Why  07:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Jonny Kim

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am proposing that these stubs about NASA Astronaut Group 22 be redirected to that page until such time as they meet the notability guidelines. Astronauts who have actually been to space are generally considered automatically notable, but these folks were just named to the program a couple of days ago and likely won't be receiving any significant press until they end up in space. Primefac (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that Matthew Dominick was already redirected per an A10 closure, but it should be considered included in this result. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep NASA astronauts are inherently notable, especially this class which will go beyond Low Earth Orbit and assemble the exploration gateway around the Moon. Announcement was made in the presence of Vice president Pence, at JSC Houston, and widely covered by mainstream media. Biographies and pictures are available on line and provide enough substance for a significant article. Astronauts are role models for our youth and our young wikipedia users will want details about their lives. Hektor (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No Hektor, notability is never inherent. This essay explains why. WP:NOTINHERITED. Domdeparis (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ...this class which will go beyond Low Earth Orbit... (emphasis added) - are you absolutely sure about this? 100%? Because there are plenty of projects that get delayed, extended, reworked (just look at Hubble Space Telescope, which was supposed to end it's mission in the early 2000s, or the James Webb Space Telescope, which has been delayed at least seven years). There are no guarantees in spaceflight. Primefac (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And to reiterate my nomination statement - no one is saying that astronauts are not notable, but these folks aren't yet astronauts. Being named will of course generate plenty of press, but people only known for one thing don't get articles. I'm advocating redirection because these people will eventually become notable individuals. Primefac (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Primefac.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect all to NASA Astronaut Group 22 until there is evidence of notability. Pam  D  15:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep If this "Jessica Watkins" geology - Google Search is typical of the candidates, there will be a plethora of citations to establish notability, so why go to a redirect when we're just going to have to write the articles anyway. Jessica Watkins was probably going to be notable anyway; it's just relatively early in her research career so the citation count on her published works are small. Being in the astronaut class seals it. Peaceray (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , most of those hits are either from her school or from the last 48 hours. Are there any independent sources that talk about her from before Tuesday? Primefac (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of a criteria of having to been notable for a certain amount of time before someone was eligible for a Wikipedia article. Please note, at least in my humble observance, that hits in Google are going to often be those most recently heavily accessed. But even with a criteria of being older than the last 48 hours, let's take a look at this query with a max date limit of 2017-05-31: Jessica Watkins" geology - Google Search, May 31, 2017 & before Peaceray (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's more the fact that if someone only gains a huge amount of web traffic due to one thing, they're generally not considered notable. See WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. Also, browsing through the most promising hits on the link you provided show passing mentions, unrelated people with the same name, blog posts, and not much else in the way of usable information. Primefac (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Selection into NASA's astronaut program hardly equals a single event as envisioned in WP:BLP1E. It's ongoing, & anyone selected into the program has always gotten a Wikipedia article, as in anyone in NASA Astronaut Group 1 through NASA Astronaut Group 21. This includes the someone like Theodore C. Freeman, who never made it into space because he was killed in a T-38 crash in 1964 before being selected for any flight assignment. Surely if someone like that gets an article, Jessica Watkins who (1) previously had questionable notability but a number of mentions in the press & university sites, (2) is well on the way to being an established research academic, & (3) in a NASA astronaut program (heretofore a guarantee to getting a Wikipedia article) will have an article. There will be >10 citations establishing notability, & probably bibliography & academic career sections. If I had free time (currently @work), I'd be expanding the article now. Peaceray (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can expand any of the above articles to a point where it demonstrates notability, I will be happy to strike it from the nomination. Also, regarding the other Groups - OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm doing the BEFORE to get a bunch of the Group 21 pages deleted/redirected because they're in the same boat as these pages. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I wonder if this latest article in Ars is germane. Anyway, fyi. It does sort of raise the question of whether they'll actually be going anywhere. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that's germane to the discussion of whether they are notable enough for article pages. Notability isn't based on whether or not they fly. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect or Delete These are candidates, not astronauts yet until they complete training. They don't necessarily have to go into space, but they will not be notable as "astronauts" until this happens: WP:CRYSTAL. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and update. No longer candidates - the 12 have been named astronauts. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 23:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you are mistaken. The term "candidate" does not mean "applicant"; they are Astronaut Candidates until they complete astronaut training, in two years. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think that becoming an astronaut candidate makes the individuals meet the notability guidelines.  Kees08  (Talk)   02:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If I expand these articles, would you all be fine with keeping them and not redirecting them? I am working my way towards newer astronauts in my project, but I can also work from the most recent as well.  Kees08  (Talk)   03:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect until they've flown and gotten their astronaut wings, they are just 1E people (they survived selection) -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of articles on astronauts that have never flown, that really goes above and beyond what we have historically considered notable. I think that ASCANs are inherently notable.  Kees08  (Talk)   03:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect all to NASA Astronaut Group 22 until any of them is assigned an actual mission. — JFG talk 07:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We actually have articles on astronauts that were never assigned a mission, in case that sways you at all.  Kees08  (Talk)   03:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect all, being an astronaut is notable, being in training for one is another matter. The coverage they may get before that is just human interest tabloid material or no encyclopedic value--the policy is nOT INDISCRIMINATE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 16:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Jessica Watkins is also a former American women’s national team rugby player for the sevens and she was in the semifinalist team at the 2009 Women's Sevens World Cup. Does that ensure notability as a sports person / rugby sevens ? Hektor (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * NSPORTS-SPORTSBIO seems very indiscriminate to the extent of being absurd. We have articles on people who we have no data on and think are "notable". (ie there are articles on people who only have a last name, and a single appearance at a championship, and that's it, there's no other information on that person; that's the entire article!) Those clearly fail GNG and are singularly 1E people, but they exist on claims that various NSPORTS-BIO guidelines say they are notable, when if you use GNG instead, they are not notable. So,... in the case of Jessica Watkins, she appear in one championship without getting to the final... does this meet GNG? It seems to meet the extremely low bar set by NSPORTS-BIO -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, but the combination, being in the US Rugby national team at 2009 World cup (and top scorer btw) + being later selected as astronaut, doesn't it combine in terms of notability ? This is quite a story. In addition she participated in other continental tournaments. Plus we have lot of biographical data from her différent carreers ( rugby player, scientist and astronaut), so we are not in a "no data" case. see here for instance... Hektor (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've stricken Watkins from the list, as she meets a few different metrics now. Thank you for improving that article. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect all or delete meeting the NSPORT or any other subject specific notabilty criteria (excepting maybe WP:ACADEMIC which IMHO should be modified) is only a way of avoiding PRODDING and CSD potentially notable subjects. In the FAQ on NSPORT page it clearly states "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them". None of these pages have sufficient sources to prove they pass WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep NASA astronauts are notable. There is always great interest in them, and there is always a lot of material generated about them. Hence, they pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." So the "material generated" as you put it, has to be sourced in the article. If it isn't then it doesn't pass GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that is not correct. It is sufficient for the material to exist. The actual condition of the article is immaterial. Deletion is not cleanup. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am willing to put work into the articles and get the sourcing inline, but I am not willing to do that if the article is going to be deleted. I think the RfD was a little premature on these.  Kees08  (Talk)   19:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but that's nuts. I'm quoting directly from GNG. If the material isn't there then notability is not proven. And these guys are not astronautes yet. How can you be sure that the material exists or will exist? The essay you quote says that if a notable article can be improved by editing then deletion is not necessary. For the moment the question is not the quality but the notability. When these guys actually get up in space there will probably be plenty of material but no one has found it yet. So probably WP:TOOSOON. You cannot presume that an astronaut candidate will become an astronaut so you cannot presume they will be notable. Can you quote policy or at least guidelines that back up your arguments? Domdeparis (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The material is there, so the notability is proven. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So which sources are significant coverage and independent of these people as per GNG? There is a single CBS article that is simply routine coverage and a resume and not in depth and the NASA Web site which is definitely not independent.  If you can tell me which meet the GNG requirements I will happily change my !Vote to keep. Domdeparis (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you looking for non-NASA sources for these folks? Washington Examiner, Official Navy Blog, Military Times, LA Times, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, ABC, CBS, Schmidt Ocean Institute. I did not try hard at all to find those, there are plenty more where those came from. Let me know if there is a specific quantity per person or specific total quantity. Otherwise, this should satisfy WP:GNG. Let me know thanks!  Kees08  (Talk)   05:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Of the sources that you have supplied only 1 (the ABC article) counts as independent in depth coverage in a WP:RS. All the others are either a rewrite of the NASA bios or associated with the person in question or a blog. I'm going to change my !vote to partial keep for the person mention in the ABC article but stay on redirect for the others. Domdeparis (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Jonny Kim
 * Boston Magazine, plus the Pat Tillman Foundation video
 * Kayla Barron
 * Patriot League
 * Baltimore Sun
 * Zena Cardman
 * Mashable interview
 * Verge Interview
 * Raja Chari
 * Department of Defense
 * Robert Hines
 * Al.com
 * Warren Hoburg
 * CBS Pittsburgh
 * MIT faculty page
 * Robb Kulin
 * Verge Interview
 * Jasmin Moghbeli
 * 12News
 * Loral O'Hara
 * ABC Article
 * Francisco Rubio
 * Miami Herald
 * Al Dia Science
 * Still working, just going down the list.  Kees08  (Talk)   18:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There, done. Let me know if you think there are additional citations needed per astronaut candidate.  Kees08  (Talk)   18:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Strong Keep. The astronaut candidates of the previous two Astronaut Groups (21 and 20) had articles after they were announced in 2009 and 2013 respectively. Having articles for the selectees of Group 22 is simply keeping with the precedent that being a new member of the Astronaut Corps in and of itself passes the notability criteria for a Wikipedia article. -- Evans1982 (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS might explain why that argument is not really valid IMHO. every article must be judged individually on its own merits. Domdeparis (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, & states:

As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments related to existing notability policies and guidelines in deletion discussions, and also to consider otherwise valid matters of precedent and consistency, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged.
 * Thus if this essay is cited as a means of reflecting on an article's by notability, then I encourage folks to read it. However,if you are using it to say "because of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, precedent and consistency don't count", well, you get no traction with me, because that is a misreading of the essay.
 * Precedent & consistency need to be considered. If precedent & consistency were the sole factors, then the subject would be not notable. But in the presence of other potential reasons for notability, precedent & consistency must be given their full weight.
 * NASA seems to me to be a meritocracy. Just getting into the astronaut program is usually an indicator that the participants already have noteworthy accomplishments.
 * Peaceray (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying about precedent but simply saying that because NASA is a meritocracy then they must be noteworthy seems pushing it a bit far. They have been chosen to follow the training programme on their qualities and capacities not because they are noteworthy. Skilled doesn't mean notable. If they had not been selected for training then would they be notable enough for a page? They are geologists, soldiers, doctors etc but no one has dug up sources to prove them as being notable before selection. If they are already notable as per WP definitions then why are the sources not there? They have not yet completed the training programme have not been selected for a mission. All of that is 2 years away at the earliest. Is being selected enough to pass GNG without other sources? Domdeparis (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you that you are reading something different into what I wrote than what I intended. I interpret indicator, as in "a pointer or index that indicates something", as something that connotes probability, not certaintude. Peaceray (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep all - On a procedural basis. Bring 'em up one at a time if there are individual issues; this is a sloppy nomination. Carrite (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2017 (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.