Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Ballard


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sarah Ballard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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 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)
 * I had thought this AfD would be a snow, but it has been suggested that coverage in local media and mention of the work in a space.com source equate to notability under GNG. I wish to challenge this, because GNG requires reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.  Certainly, local media can be used to confirm the existence of the work, and the existence of the subject.  But they are not useful for ascertaining the notability of the scientist or her work, in terms of long-standing encyclopedic impact.  News media often fails to be a reliable secondary source on matters like these.  In many cases, it is based purely on interviews with the subject.  So it clearly and directly fails the independence requirement of WP:GNG.  Also, it fails WP:PSTS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, etc.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Thor Dockweiler, under WP:GNG rather than WP:ACADEMIC.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:17, 14 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 Radio, Public Radio International, 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. If only discovering a planet had the same automatic-notability feature as playing in one professional baseball game. - Brianhe (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As one who has first-hand experience with sexism (having been passed-over in a job application because of it), I can assure you that I am very well in tune with the effect of which you speak...So, you can rightly assume some resentment on my part for a comment such as yours. My observations agree pretty-well with Bialy's: the WP push to create a politically-correct "balance" of the sexes has resulted in a spate of substandard articles on women who do not meet long-established notability guidelines. For example, the ill-fated Art+Feminism Regina Meetup on obscure female artists from that region a few months ago was a disaster! Some of the articles have been deleted, but many have resisted deletion, basically because of special pleading. If this dynamic continues (as it is likewise for other groups – this is basically a larger issue of boosterism), WP will eventually be reduced to an inclusive list of all people. Agricola44 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC).
 * Slippery slope much? FUD that in the future "Wikipedia will devolve into _______" is not an argument. Editors are always shouting that the future of Wikipedia is at stake if they don't get their way. Thousands of bad decisions have not brought Wikipedia crashing down, and this one (one way or the other) will not either. Whether or not a meetup created biographies that fail notability is not a reason to keep or delete this article. Labeling something "politically correct" is meaningless, since nobody agrees what is or isn't politically correct; it's just a redundant way of saying "I don't like it." Red herrings, all. It is not a red herring to remind editors that systemic bias is a real thing that exists, and therefore we should all should exercise due care before making drive-by !votes. Bias or not, nobody should cite WP:ACADEMIC, or any other all-caps shortcut, if they obviously haven't actually read it. It does not say what most of these guys think it says. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It would surely help the cause if the countering systemic bias folks could more reliably write articles that meet our notability guidelines. So far, I have not been impressed.  All of the deletion discussions here that have arisen from the putsch over the last few month have involved lots of special pleading.  If BLP articles written about women should be held to a lower standard than those of men, then I think the appropriate place to suggest that is at a policy page, not introduced by stealth into individual AfDs (I am paraphrasing Xxanthippe).  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "All involved special pleading" is quite a claim. Are you including this deletion debate in that? Because WP:GNG, which I have pinned notability on in this case, starts with the word "general", the very opposite of "special". - Brianhe (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the sentence: "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" is special pleading. It is asking that criteria should be applied asymmetrically in the light of the fact that the subject is a woman rather than a man.  If this had been an article about a male scientist, most likely it would close as a SNOW delete.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. The nominator's argument that discovery of several X is unimportant if counting all X is large, is bizarre and untenable. It's like saying Albert Hofmann is unimportant because he only discovered one of many psychoactive compounds, or Charles Louis Alphonse Laveran is unimportant because there are so many known pathogens. To reduce it to numbers it would be more reasonable to ask how many discoverers of X exist. Or more to the point in this case, how many have introduced a new method of discovering X (transit-timing variation)? The special pleading here seems to be coming from the side downplaying a scientific discovery. - Brianhe (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Good examples! Those people are notable because the discoveries that they made were of a lasting, substantial scientific and cultural impact, as evidenced by discussion in scholarly sources of the highest quality. For example, Hoffman was the subject of an entire book.  Charles Louis Alphonse Laveran won the Nobel Prize for his discovery.  If the suggestion here is that the subject under discussion made, not just one, but four scientific discoveries of equivalent lasting scientific scientific import, then it should be a trivial matter to find high quality scholastic sources attesting this individual's impact.  If such sources are presented, I will happily change my vote.  However, if you are suggesting as you appear that every minor scientific discovery made by a post-doctoral researcher should be elevated to the level of a Nobel Prize on the basis of the gender of the researcher, I hope you appreciate why I see this as problematic.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I find your stance problematic as it is a case of moving the goal-posts. If a scientist is notable for discovering a new compound, then another scientist should be notable for discovering a new way to find exoplanets. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was not the one who invited a comparison to Nobel Prize winners, but you are for some reason perpetuating it. Charles Louis Alphonse Laveran was the winner of the Nobel Prize in 1907, the subject of a centennial article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine as well as entire chapters in books on the history of medicine.  There are reliable secondary sources of the highest quality attesting Laveran's notability.  Are there reliable secondary sources concerning Sarah Ballard's work?  If, as you attest, the discovery of the exoplanet is as significant as the Nobel Prize work, it should be a trivial matter to find such sources.  WP:ITEXISTS is not the same as notability.  Thanks,  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See my sources below. It was very easy to find them. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources you found are in no way comparable to a centennial article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, book chapters, and a Nobel Prize. Quite apart from the obvious difference in quality of the sources, the latter are independent of the subject.  In the sources you have found, the subject is quoted, but there is no independent assessment of the subject's individual impact on the field.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: My understanding is that WP:PROF is more relevant than WP:GNG because Sarah Ballard is not a figure with "significant coverage" as required for GNG. As the expression goes, everyone has their 15 minutes of fame, which seems to have generated a few brief mentions of Sarah Ballard on some news stations and blogs. (This is not atypical for postdocs, since public outreach is often a requirement for positions like Carl Sagan postdoctoral fellowships.) However, none of these mentions suggests that she is generally well known. Instead, she seems to be a typical postdoc, making good, incremental scientific progress in an interesting field. Although I didn't specifically mention it in the nomination above, I agree with the others that WP:TOOSOON applies in this case. OtterAM (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Just remember "15-minutes of fame" is still notability as notability is not temporary nor does it degrade over time (see WP:NTEMP and WP:DEGRADE). Davidbuddy9  Talk  01:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * By "15 minutes of fame" I mean the idea that almost everyone (in the US at least) finds themselves in the news at least once in their lives. But, being mentioned by a newspaper/website does not necessarily imply notability. OtterAM (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Her most highly cited paper has roughly 80 authors, the second around 100 (you do the counting) so it is not clear if her contribution to it stood out from the rest. Time will tell. That is why I cited WP:Too soon. For a seriously notable woman astronomer take a look at Virginia Trimble. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC).


 * Comment: It might be useful to note that per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (people subsection) that articles on academics below the level of professor (like the subject of the WP article) are generally not kept, while even articles on professors are kept or deleted in roughly equal numbers. OtterAM (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep discovered Kepler 61b, a billion year + planet about twice the diameter of Earth that is considered a good candidate for the detection of extra-terrestrial life. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC).


 * She did not discover it single-handedly. There were 79 other authors on the paper. Are they all notable too, or not? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC).
 * The other authors must not have been notable or we would have media coverage. The coverage is solely about Ballard, which indicates her notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Even our own article on Kepler 61b says "The planet was discovered by the Kepler team". WoS shows that the highly-cited papers on which Ballard is an author have fairly large author lists (>50). These kinds of "big science" projects make it difficult to assign credit and the "keeps" are erroneously assigning the credit to one person. I'll say again that post-docs (which Ballard is) are almost always WP:TOOSOON. It is very typical for a post-doc to be a first author on a group paper, but one has to remember that that person is working under the supervision of a senior scientist, project leader, or professor. Ballard very likely will be notable in the future, but an article will have to wait until she has accomplishments that can more clearly be attributed to her own work/leadership/research. Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC).
 * We can't use Wikipedia as a source in these arguments. The editors writing about Kepler 61b may have made an error. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments below. Agricola44 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC).


 * Keep She is clearly the important person in the discovery of the exoplanet. If she wasn't, her name would not keep coming up. Nature lists her name, not the others. She is the lead author of the publication (the others must not be notable, or they would be mentioned by name in the news.) Again, Ballard is mentioned (not any other scientists) in different articles about astronomy and exoplanets here:, , , , . Source says she discovered 4 planets: . Entire article about her and her planet-finding method: . All of this coverage shows her passing GNG easily and not just by "local" sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * She is the lead author on only one of the five science articles on the discovery. Proof is needed that lead authorship on one paper with >50 authors is significant. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC).
 * Again, my proof that she is significant is that she is the only one being talked about in the media. If the others were significant, media would cover them as well. Can you explain why the media is not covering the others? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG requires independent, reliable, secondary sources. "The media" is not a source.  The source is interviews with the subject herself; thus primary, not secondary, and not independent.  An independent would be an official statement by a scientific body, an award, or even a secondary source in the scientific literature discussing the significance of Ballard's contribution.  These secondary sources of course can be repeated in "the media".   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have given you examples in my Keep argument which include an article from Nature, several news sources and others. (Some sources require a subscription, but you should be able to read the abstract.) Newspapers are reliable sources as are journals. Please see notability guidelines. These guidelines do not say anything about official statements by scientific bodies for a secondardy source to be considered reliable and independent. And by definition, "the media" (if we define it as newspapers, radio, journals and magazines) are a secondary source which would, by definition, report on the information they have been given by the primary sources. My sources pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still not seeing what I would consider to be a reliable, independent, secondary source indicating notability. Even something small, like an interview with an independent scientific authority attesting the significance of Ballard's contribution to this work.  Independence is the key requirement.  Just because her name was mentioned in a press release, or she is quoted in the article does not mean she is notable.   For example, it is very possible that she is the press liaison for this project?  So, if you have a quotation that you feel would help to support your case in a substantive way, please post it.   But argumentum ad googlium seems a rather poor basis for a nuanced discussion about notability.  Also, I cannot view your links to assess them.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing from Google. I carefully selected sources to present. If you don't have database access like I do, you can still see the source and abstract. You are dabbling in original research when you say we don't know why Ballard is named and in speculation that she is the press liaison. It is more correct to say she is in the press because she was the study's lead. Not all of my sources are behind subscriptions either. Also, I'm pretty sure Nature is reliable, independent and science-backed. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Nature link is broken for me, and seems like a search engine. That's not what we call a reliable source.  A reliable source is something that we can reference to make some specific statement, with specific attribution.  For example: "According to Professor X of the Royal Astronomical Society, Ballard's has made significant contributions to the study of exoplanets through the introduction of transit timing variations."  That is what is missing here.  An independent assessment that Ballard personally made significant contributions to this area, and that it is noteworthy enough to have an encyclopedia article about it.  Another example is the AfD Articles for deletion/Maryna Viazovska.  Note that there, I had initially voted to delete, until someone quoted Peter Sarnak's independent assessment of the subject's work.  That is what a secondary source is: it is a reliable authority making an evaluative claim about the primary source, which is Ballard's work in this area.  News media are reliable on Wikipedia typically as primary sources: they can repeat what others say in an area, they can be used to verify facts, in this case the existence of a person called Sarah Ballard, her work, etc.  But they cannot generally be used in this way as secondary sources for making evaluative claims, particularly in the sciences, such as notability of the subject of this BLP.  Indeed, what I and others have seen does not sufficiently distinguish Ballard from the other members of the research group, in a way that is directly supported by secondary research in the area.
 * I find it very telling that you are as yet unable to find a quotation that clearly and directly supports your contention that the subject is notable. That suggests that the subject does not pass GNG.  I think it should be easy enough to find such an independent assessment if the subject is notable under that guideline.  After all WP:PROF is actually supposed to be a weaker guideline for academics than GNG.  It is extremely unusual that an academic will meet GNG but not PROF.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi! First of all, EBSCO is not a search engine: it's a database which indexes newspapers and journals. The link is to an abstract for the article to Nature. If you have database access, like I do, you may read the article. In the article, only Ballard is referenced by name--no one else. One quote is: "Sarah Ballard at the University of Washington in Seattle and her colleagues estimated the planet's diameter at about 18,8000 km..." I understand what a secondary source is, thank you: you are indicating that not all secondary sources are independent or reliable. Each must be evaluated on its own merits. I agree. In this example, Nature is a secondary source talking about Ballard's work on the exoplanet. The paper at Astrophysics is the primary source. Nature is one of the most cited scientific journals in the world. Ballard is not the press liaison. She is clearly listed as the lead in the study:, , . She is the one who discusses the possible find here before it was confirmed: And anyone can meet GNG and not something else. It's way easier to show GNG. She passes GNG already clearly. However many people here are trying to argue something else. I can only try to describe the argument being made as something like this: Ballard is only "part of a team" and therefore not able to pass GNG. This argument is problematic since it is Ballard that is mentioned in all of the articles: not anyone else on the team. She has significant coverage--enough to pass GNG as I have shown with my finds and with what is inside of the article already. I find it a problem that I have backed up all of my claims, but all those !voting delete have to show are negative arguments trying to move goal posts. If you feel you need database access, you can request it like I did from the Wiki Library. I am also going to ping  since they are very familiar with PROF and can do justice to that part of the argument. My position is that she meets GNG and no other standard needs to be met here. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * fixing my broken ping:
 * Notability of one scientist on a team of a hundred or so is not inherited. In my estimation, and that of others here, identification of Ballard's team of researchers by name does not confer notability onto the subject.  Her individual contribution must be assessed by a secondary source, and cannot be inferred from quotations such as the one you provided.   Furthermore, I motion that all inaccessible deep links to databases be discarded from consideration, unless they can be properly formatted as proper references, or quotations given to secondary sources giving an independent assessment of Ballard's contributions to these studies.  I am not even convinced that the alleged Nature article that you have presented as a secondary source even exists.  S ławomir  Biały  15:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me as if you are accusing me of bad faith, . I do not appreciate that. I have been civil in this discussion. I do not agree with you, but I don't need to fabricate an article. Please strike your comments above. That's a serious allegation: to accuse another editor of faking an article. We also do not discard sources just because an editor does not have access to databases. Please read WP:PAYWALL. If you want access, you can get it like I did through the Wiki library. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a red herring. I am assuming good faith on your part, but if you don't know how to format references in a way that others can look them up and verify their contents, and you can't be bothered to supply direct, attributed statement to independent reliable secondary sources, then there's really nothing to discuss.    This is just WP:VAGUEWAVE hiding behind a paywall. I've asked you for references to imdependent seconday spurces on several occassions, as well as their specific attestation of notability. But nothing has been forthcoming.   This is a standard trick on Wikipedia: lose an argument, accuse the other party of assuming bad faith.  I would admonish you to focus on the matter at hand as I have repeatedly requested.  If you feel there is anything actionable in the above post, you can either raise it at WP:ANI, but it seems like it should be simpler just to prove me wrong.  There's no need to take it personally, but if you actually have nothing to say, then I think we should consider the matter closed, rather than engage in petty sniping as above.    S ławomir  Biały  17:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hardly a red herring. It's offensive to accuse editors of fabricating sources and I am not the one who took the conversation in such a direction. I can't just "give" you access to database articles: there are copyvio restrictions. I gave you a link to the relevant article. I gave you a quote showing she is the media-covered person in the study. Just because you are not satisfied with what I have given you, does not give you the right to accuse me of fabricating something. Please strike your accusation. It is in bad faith and does not help this discussion or your argument. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No accusation of bad faith. Just a reasonable request for citations, and the facts that those citations support.   S ławomir  Biały  18:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment about presuming notability from media coverage. One of the arguments advanced earlier is that if the media fails to cover the co-authors on a paper, their contributions must have been non-notable. However, as a general matter, I don't think that the mass media is capable of making a reliable determination as to the relative contributions of each co-author to a complex, highly collaborative research project. Just this week, I read a press release by a major university which really trumped up the role of one of its graduate students in a recent research paper -- without even acknowledging that someone unaffiliated with the school was the lead author. Moreover, in observational astronomical research, some co-authors might contribute crucial observational data, offer insightful interpretations of data, or write parts of the final paper. The fact that observational astronomy is a collaborative endeavor doesn't diminish the achievements of the lead author, but it does make it somewhat unrealistic to assign one person the sole credit for the outcome of a research collaboration. To the extent that the contributions of Dr. Ballard's co-authors are relevant here, they shouldn't be assumed to be trivial simply because of the lack of media coverage. Put another way, Dr. Ballard has been a co-author on several papers, and her contributions to those works should not be presumed negligible simply because the media might not have paid attention to them. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What you're are asking for Wiki editors to do is original research. If the person involved in the study, who is also the lead, is in the media they are the notable person involved. Your example above may show a mistake that has happened with one person, but Ballard is different in that she is not only the person the media covered after the exoplanet Kepler was discovered, but she has also been in the media before the discovery. Unless we are assuming multiple mistaken press releases (unlikely), then it's pretty clear we are dealing with a person who is notable on the project, more so than the others. No press coverage usually indicates no notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply. I wouldn't want editors to engage in original research; my point is simply that media coverage is not a reliable method of assessing someone's contribution to a research project, and we should avoid trying to draw inferences along those lines. However, I think that this is a bit of a tangent, given the GNG argument. I finally decided to vote keep on GNG grounds (below). Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply I understand the point you're making now, . Thanks for clearing it up for me and replying. I think since there were two different arguments going on at the same time, it muddied things a bit, and I misunderstood you. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "No press coverage usually indicates no notability." Often this is not true for academics, see WP:PROF.  The flip side of this is that being quoted in the media also does not make one notable.  Notability requires reliable secondary sources.  Examples of reliable secondary sources can be found at WP:SCHOLARSHIP and  WP:PSTS.  S ławomir  Biały  17:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per Rich and Megalibrarygirl. Meets GNG. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to Draft at best - The best parts here are the exoplanets findings, the article is still questionable overall at best. SwisterTwister   talk  04:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have to regrettably observe that this article is another case in which boosters (in this case for articles on women) are misdirecting the discussion. For those who do not know or who are willfully looking past the way in which the dynamics of "big science projects" work...this case is entirely typical: a post-doc is lead author on a paper that represents a team effort of dozens (sometimes hundreds) of people, all of whose names are on the paper, and an excited but not terribly informed media contact the first author for talking points. The philosophical error of some of the above arguments, which basically amount to "there are sources, so GNG!", is that PROF was developed because a very large fraction of academics would otherwise qualify exactly in this way. (One might view this from the perspective of statistics in that academics, as a cohort, are not a random sampling of the population. Rather, they are highly biased toward notability....hence the need for PROF.) So, we judge academics (which Ballard is) against a different standard. However, in Ballard's case there's more because of the "big science" aspect ... the media could have contacted anyone else, for example the senior author, or her supervisor David Charbonneau (the 2nd author). The internal decision-making process on author order is a major issue within academia (why was Charbonneau not the first author?), but usually a good supervisor will put a grad student or postdoc first because they know how the dynamics of publicity work. Consequently, it's extremely disingenuous to make the claim (as some panelists do above), that these are Ballard's discoveries and that is why there are sources and these sources are why she is notable. It comes down to something that has been observed numerous times before: it is close to impossible to separate out a grad student or post-doc's contributions from her advisor's/lab's/research team's because mere appearances from author list (and it's accumulated benefits) can be deceiving – that is why WP:TOOSOON (in the absence of conclusive demonstration of notability) is the judicious interpretation of all such cases. Agricola44 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC).
 * Comment. I concur with Agricola44's description of the nature of modern scientific collaboration and how it complicates efforts to award credit for a research group's achievements. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Could have" chosen the supervisor isn't an argument. The facts are it is Ballard who is talked about in the majority of the articles. Yes, it is hard to separate and find who did what on a project... such an endeavor, however, would be "original research." We already have RS that show that Ballard is notable in this project. We do not need to do original research in order to make sure journalists haven't already done their due diligence in this process. There is no need for PROF here. And this has nothing to do with her "being a woman." I personally devote my time to women's articles, but I would argue that if Ballard was male, the same GNG bar has been passed. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep We need more articles like this one.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Why not just add to the article folks? Interesting responses, some stretching though on both sides (especially the deletionists who just can't stand not having the last word). I have changed the lede (still keeping the original one below it for the moment during discussion). Ballard qualifies alone as any 1 of the 3 Fellows. Sagan and especially L'Oreal stand out. She qualifies again independently because of TTV. She qualifies for having discovered 4 planets. She qualifies further with the Marcy situation. The Marcy case is the strongest of the 6 and is GNG. In light of Marcy, I trust this AfD was not exercised as payback. I am tired right now -- we astrobats need rest in daylight -- and will return in about 9 hours to fill in referencing, etc. The article is now definitely keepable. Brianhe is to be commended for selecting this appropriate biography article. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep She more than meets GNG in her case showing bias in the workplace:, , ,. Add to that multiple sources showing she has been discussed as the lead researcher on a variety of projects, in multiple RS, , , ,. SusunW (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, those that are making the argument that Prof or any other "career" standard is the bar, fail to understand that the reason GNG is the standard and that all other standards are secondary is that people are not one-dimensional. A person doesn't have to set the bar individually in multiple categories to be notable. SusunW (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as per SusunW, Thor Dockweiler and others above, clearly passes WP:GNG. Davidbuddy9  Talk 20:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Note 1 in WP:ACADEMIC emphasizes that WP:ACADEMIC, like all subject-specific notability guidelines, is not a substitute for GNG notability. My interpretation of policy is that academics aren't held to a higher standard of notability; rather, WP:ACADEMIC is there for academics who are notable in spite of their failure to satisfy GNG. As others have pointed out, Dr. Ballard has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and the attention that she's received as a voice against harassment in astronomy seals the deal for me. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I'd just like to point out that keeping articles like this is very unusual for Wikipedia. Most people are not considered noteworthy until they do something significantly new and path-breaking or are widely known. Sarah Ballard neither leads the Kepler mission, nor invented the methods she used to find the planets, nor found a considerable number of planets (compared to the many other people who have found planets). Instead, she is a member of the Kepler team with access to the data, applied methods developed by others (the transit timing method invented by David Charbonneau), and discovered several planets in the super-Earth, sub-Neptune range (incrementally expanding the population of known planets for statistical analysis). We need more people doing good incremental work like her, but there are already many research assistants at universities like her doing similar work. Articles like this make Wikipedia more resemble a resume service, like Linkedin, and less resemble an encyclopedia. OtterAM (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * From usertalk:Thor Dockweiler: Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Deplorable

I strongly deplore your suggestion that the Ballard AfD was related to Marcy, who is not even mentioned in the article. This is a clear violation of Assume_good_faith. In the last few days I've seen a number of academics deleted from wikipedia, including some with long track records in their fields and discoveries to their name. (But, not quite enough for them to be considered notable.) In my view, WP should not be turned into the next linked in. OtterAM (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? I have absolutely no idea how you would not know how Ballard was not notable to begin with. By how you worded the AfD nomination I know you had the skill to determine quickly that the article could be kept. You took the route of technicality. Please note that I did very little to the lede to make it sufficiently notable. Could you not have done something similar, or contacted someone who might be able to so? Nothing changed in this AfD until I put in Marcy. I think you were capable of doing the same and had the ability to know this before AfD'ing. So, frankly, I do not know what to believe with all the stuff I have seen in Wikipedia. I assume good faith, but I have certainly seen good faith used as a crutch to hide behind against perfectly decent editors who were just trying. In these cases it causes me to question because it may be a definite possibility (but not necessarily true). You point out that several academics recently have been deleted. I again have to question. Did you do something positive to save any of them? Or did you AfD them? I have no way of knowing unless I really start checking. Look at the people's time, not to mention your own, that was eaten up by this AfD and the frustration you caused them. Impressive. I can truly say I think you angered some of the female editors. Why? My impression, which may not be in fact, is like someone who steps on an anthill and watches the ensuing havoc, perhaps with delight. Maybe you may have a liking for astronomy. Fantastic. I think I have seen your username recently on something. Good if you are positively contributing. I can think of several W items in astronomy that would be nice to have, or even RCW's. There are thousands of NGC items that are needed. Wikipedia needs lots of filling of its knowledge holes. I look forward to your positive contributions. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)"
 * This is Libel pure and simple. I might note that User talk:Thor Dockweiler has recently been accused of disruption for violation of the 3-reverts rule on a completely different article and was also criticized recently by another user (again on a different article) for not assuming Assume_Good_Faith. I strongly suggest that Thor take back his previous comment. OtterAM (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My goodness, I thought we were done with everything. You did delete the entry, which I reverted once; I just want the record to reflect the exchange. You make it sound like I am a bad dude. In all of my active years on Wikipedia since 2008 I have had only 1 situation. I spent one full year (all of 2015) doing pre-work and then contributing from June into late December to a small randomly selected stub article on an archeological site in Ancient Egypt. Then someone did vandalism slow style over the holidays trying to Nazify a person therein and promote the sale of their book. I reverted the vandalism and defended the victim. The other person lost. I was given a warning for the proper reverting. Warnings or sanctions are given to all parties regardless of whether it is proper or just. I have spent over 9,000 hours of my time on WP. I should not feel this way, but I am proud I defended that person. If I have to go down defending a woman astronomer on WP, so be it. By the way, I am a male. People can always go to my talk page to explore the truth (a waste of your time in my case). Any relation to Ten Pound Hammer and his various otters on WP? I can always leave and never come back. My opinions are my own. My response is no to you. Rather, I am "taken aback". I bet a college class on AfD would be downright fascinating. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:Brianhe and User:Astro4686. It meets GNG as there is quite a bit of reliable coverage on a variety of topics. I assume the closing admin will note that 'delete' !votes citing only WP:ACADEMIC without mentioning GNG are incomplete. Being an academic does not imply one has to meet WP:ACADEMIC in order to be notable, as others have mentioned. Meeting GNG suffices. Gap9551 (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - As referred to above many times, I think that the coverage of her as a person makes her notable on those general grounds. The discussion about the exact nature of her academic qualifications and her role in collaborative enterprises is interesting, but that's its own matter. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment. Consensus seems to be that the subject does not pass WP:Prof, despite the finding that she is the Principal Investigator of the project. This term seems to have been translated by journalists into "leader", but Principal Investigator is essentially an administrative position having responsibility for dealing with grant donors, telescope administrators, report writing, publicity etc. There is nothing to preclude a Principal Investigator from being an intellectual leader of a project but nothing to require it either. GNG is difficult to establish because there is not any in-depth independent source, just interviews with the subject giving her own words-in other words primary sources The sexual harassment matter is a WP:BLP1E. I am sorry to see so many editors barrel-scraping a sub-marginal BLP when there issues involving really notable women calling for attention. Xxanthippe (talk).
 * Comment. I don't know how many of the "keep" eds here are familiar with academic procedure, but I gather it's not too many. Post-docs work under the supervision of an advisor. It is just as correct, if not more, to say that these are Charbonneau's discoveries – he's been detecting exoplanets for more than 20 years. In the low-awareness media world, Ballard was the beneficiary of author order and we are indeed doing WP:OR by reading sole credit for discovery into that (as many have done). This article, which seems certain to be kept, is another step in the listification of WP. We might as well start adding all postdocs that have said a few words in the media. Agricola44 (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC).
 * To clarify, many postdocs, especially those working on a fellowship, do independent work. This typically happens in collaboration with their 'supervisor', the person who hosts or hired them, as well as with others. That is the point of being a postdoc, becoming an independent academic. It's true that some are more like assistants with little original input, but that has to be judged in each case individually. Gap9551 (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment Ballard does not need to pass WP:PROF. She only needs to pass GNG, which she does based on all of the reliable sources which have been presented here and in the article. These include the Macy incident (which would only be WP:BLP1E if that was all the article was about), her contribution to the Mauna Kea Observatory controversy and her lead in the discovery of exoplanets. Since Ballard is the one mentioned as lead and in all the articles about the exoplanets (see my comments above about that), it is in fact WP:OR for any Wiki editor to try to guess who "really" deserves the attention. The argument that Wikipedia will be somehow degraded by including a person who has been noted in the media over time with significant coverage is a strange one. If editors here are worried about "listification," I might suggest that they look to rules about inclusion of sports figures on Wiki instead of of trying to delete an article that clearly passes GNG. And as always, if any editors here are concerned about writing notable women's bios, I suggest they do so. I have noticed that has added to women's redlists on WikiProject Women Scientists, so I have to thank you for that. I hope he continues to help out and hope you all add some useful content here so we can build together. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Re: "it is in fact WP:OR for any Wiki editor to try to guess who 'really' deserves the attention" and yet that is precisely what the ignorant media has done and you have taken it up as your basis of argument. Given that Ballard is the beneficiary of author list position, why should the other people on those papers not have WP articles, as well? Is that fair? Re: "I hope he continues" – thanks for the sexist assumption – I'm saddened that such attitudes still exist here – sitting out the rest of this discussion. Best. Agricola44 (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC).
 * I'm sorry I assumed you were male: I thought I'd seen that you were a male Wikpedian. I was excited to have you onboard contributing to the redlist. I should never assume and I deserve a trout for that, . I disagree with you here but I'm not trying to be a jerk or make anything personal. I'm sorry. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: Dr. Tony Phillips of NASA states: "A team led by Sarah Ballard..."   Caltech's funding application for use of the Spitzer Telescope identifies Ballard as "principal investigator"  You can argue about whether that's citable or not under Wiki guidelines, but it certainly seems to answer the question of who lead the team. Multiple papers list her as the first author. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. Sarah Ballard has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources.

This is a very easy decision. The fact that we are even wasting our time on this suggests some editors have a bone to pick about something else, perhaps feeling threatened by the efforts of a few to correct Wikipedia's gender imbalance? WP:Notability says right at the top that we will keep an article if "It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". Anything that meets GNG has no need to pass WP:ACADEMIC or any other subject-specific guideline. It would be like trying to delete Hedy Lamarr because her scientific discoveries aren't significant enough to pass WP:SCHOLAR. A subject can be notable for any number of reasons, and the subject-specific guidelines only supply additional paths to notability. They in no way preclude notability for other reasons because a subject happens to fall under one of them.The large number of editors who glance at the article and post a 'delete' !vote, sloppily citing WP:ACADEMIC on their way out the door, are behaving irresponsibly in a way that borders on disruptive editing. Must we take so much of our time away from building an encyclopedia in order to shout in their ears the words they should have read and understood before taking advantage of convenience of shortcuts like WP:ACADEMIC: "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline. It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines." There is burden expected to read WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BLP1E or whatever all-caps shortcut, before you dash off a quick "delete per WP:BLAH !vote". As that crass reality-TV creep running for President would tweet, Lazy!

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please do not be rude to editors who you disagree with. I direct your attention to a really important matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC).
 * If you're going to be a civility scold, please do not overlook the rudeness of those you agree with. Why have you continued to beat this WP:PROF dead horse even after several editors painstakingly spelled out for you that both WP:Notability and WP:PROF explicitly, unmistakably, say that academic guidelines are only one path to notability, and failing those criteria does not preclude notability by other criteria, most importantly, GNG. They say that because this is a core principle of notability, with uncontested consensus by an overwhelming number of editors. We're not going to delete Michael Jordan because as professional motorcycle racer he never achieved anything of note, and so fails WP:ATHLETE. People only have to pass one of the notability hurdles, not all of them, and especially not one particular hurdle chosen by a particular group of editors. After being told this, having it pointed out to you, carefully quoted for you multiple times, you guys are instead condescendingly sniffing that those !voting keep 'just aren't too familiar with academic publishing'. That's not rude? Please.Instead of scolding, you need to spend your time trying to better understand the fundamental notability rules. This is an absurd waste of time. --

Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * keep the article has been edited extensively (dif) since it was nominated. Keep, for her role as PI on the project, her role as spokesperson, and for her role in talking about sexual harassment in science, all discussed extensively in reliable sources.  Passes GNG by a mile. Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * hatted a bunch of this. See WP:BLUDGEON. Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep My personal impression is that this just manages to pass GNG (although not as comfortably as a movie star would). But this is a problem with people in science who get noticeably less press attention. To be honest here, I knew Sarah Ballard only as the person who publicly complained about Marcy's sexual harassment. I was frankly not aware of her contributions to discovering exoplanets (but that is due to my non-interest in astronomy I guess). If I include the Marcy case and her contributions, I think she passes GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. It's clear that this article will be kept. Though I disagree, I would like only to illustrate here the shoddiness that inevitably results: the article is mostly supported by blogs (with trivial mention), YouTube videos, Ballard's own CV and personal website, Arxiv manuscripts, institutional PR, and various other webcruft. Most of the 2 dozen source are like this and I'm saddened if this is what all of you take as acceptable WP:RS. The Guardian piece is obviously RS, though it only has a trivial mention of Ballard in the context of the Marcy incident. The boston.com source is somewhat better, but that again is Marcy-related. I would urge the "keeps" to find proper sourcing, because the article, as it now stands, does not satisfy requirements of BLP. Agricola44 (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC).
 * Currently the article has 441 words of readable prose, barely more than a stub. The minimum standards for general notability has been met; whether on top of that there are many other sources cited which don't contribute to notability, but which are useful for other citation purposes, is irrelevant. Questionable sources, self-published, press releases, etc. are sometimes acceptable depending on what kinds of facts they're supporting: generally they're OK for background information, undisputed claims, and non-extraordinary claims. That's a matter for discussion elsewhere, perhaps if or when this article reaches a significant size and is a Good Article candidate. Keeping or deleting the article is a question of whether the minimum number of sources are present, not whether a new stub article, barely 6 months old, is shoddy. Wikipedia is a work in progress has some excellent commentary on how articles grow from being terrible, to less terrible, to barely tolerable, on up to Featured Article. It's how Wikipedia works. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "OK with an article"? I'm not "OK" with articles in need of improvement. I think they should be improved, rather then left in a poor state. That's why I edit Wikipedia, because I like to improve articles. But -- do I need to link to this? -- AfD is not cleanup. Your assertion that the notability is "supported almost entirely" by non-RS is false. The notability of the article is not dependent on all 24 citations in the footnotes. We would not delete an article because 22 of them are non-RS and only 2 are reliable. We decide to keep an article simply because the minimum number of sources exist. If 2 (or 3 or 4 as in this case) reliable sources meet the notability minimum, then the article should be kept. Whether or not the other twenty-some sources are reliable or not is of no consequence at AfD. If you are "not OK" with the use of sources that you think fail RS, then you should WP:FIXIT yourself. Go and delete the source cited. Or, perhaps more diplomatically, discuss the merits of the source or sources at Talk:Sarah Ballard or the RS noticeboard.<P>Put another way -- and several editors have tried to convey this in various levels of detail and with different wording --  the ratio of RS to non-RS in an article is not a matter for AfD. Having 1,000 non-RS along with 3 RS which meet the notability guidelines is not a reason for deletion. AfD is not interested in whether or not an article is sandbagged with 1,000 non-RS, only in the 3 which get the article over the notability hurdle.<P>All of this is another way of saying that if you're not OK with the quality of an article, go improve it, or make suggestions at the talk page, but do not nominate it for deletion. At this point I think I've run out of ways to explain this, so I have to stop. Maybe someone else knows a better way to convey the point. I also recommend to any editor to go back and carefully re-read the relevant policies and guidelines. Careful reading will often revel that the guideline does not say what the edtior thought it said. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. In fact, snow keep. Clearly notable as both an academic and a public figure, more than adequate third party coverage and once again, we must not confuse article quality (which appears to be much improved anyway) with notability. Two. Different. Things.  Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  17:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Article. quality. different. from. quality. of. sources. (the latter of which underpin notability ... sorry, I quickly grow tired of halted speech.) Please close this as keep. The community has clearly reached a consensus here. Agricola44 (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2016 (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.