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 snow keep. Doesn't look like this discussion is going to go any other way. Sam Walton (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Bouman[edit]

Katie Bouman (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)

She was one of more than 200 members of a large team who worked on the Event Horizon Telescope. The Event Horizon Telescope project is notable in itself, and has its own article, but anyone who are in some way (remotely) associated with it are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited. The article presents no proof of any independent notability, or any accomplishments she is personally credited with. Someone who isn't even an assistant professor is certainly not notable as a scientist. Otherwise this is a clear case of WP:1E. At most this merits a redirect to Event Horizon Telescope. Any relevant material can be mentioned there. Tataral (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to confirm, Bouman's not right for Wikipedia because she "is certainly not notable as a scientist", but you thought a cat called Brexit warranted its own entry? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brexit_(cat)&action=history Jesswade88 (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are many reliable sources providing significant coverage of her personally. Natureium (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, only in the context of WP:1E, and she isn't actually credited with any notable accomplishments herself. There is an article on the event, which is where this content belongs. --Tataral (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are guidelines, not policy, and based on the amount of publicity she's receiving, I see no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have a well-sourced article on her. Natureium (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:1E, "the individual's role within [the event] should [...] be considered" and "the general rule is to cover the event, not the person". Only if "the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." There were at least 200 people with comparable roles and dozens of people with much more notable roles in this event. It's not a good idea to create biographies on obscure postdocs who played very small and junior roles in the event. --Tataral (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • She's about to start a position as Assistant Professor at CalTech. She's been featured in almost all coverage of the black hole image. She is most certainly not an 'obscure postdoc'. Jesswade88 (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't you think that this position is a consequence of this mediatic coverage? I don't support deletion of the article, but the importance of the mediatic coverage and her implication in the M*87 black hole should be explicit as “member of a collaboration of 200 researchers”. Who got a wp page from the proof of Higgs' boson? Chouhartem (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not sure you're saying what I think you are, but no, her tenured position at CalTech was announced before the media frenzy this week. I'm not really concerned who "got a wp page from the proof of Higgs' boson?", but I'm sure heaps of people did. Jesswade88 (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Where do the sources say that she is tenured? She may be on the tenure track at a prestigious university, but that alone doesn't satisfy WP:NACADEMIC. I know I'm going against the tide here, but I don't see the policy basis for keeping this page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Tenured at 29? I’m skeptical. Something like that would almost be worth an article itself. Natureium (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • I was (quite clearly) responding to the comment that she is an 'obscure postdoc'. My 'vote' is below. Jesswade88 (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I guess that’s the problem with Wikipedia. We cover what reliable sources cover. Natureium (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easily notable. Being a key component of only one significant scientific discovery doesn't mean you're not notable. Regardless, sum of all human knowledge and all that, I see no reason why it shouldnt be kept. Vermont (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no evidence that she is a "key component". There article doesn't demonstrate that. --Tataral (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. The subject meets neither of WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. If an article about the actual discovery exists or is created, they can be mentioned, but there is no justification for this spin-off. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's now tons of in-depth coverage specifically about her, making it very difficult to take claims of not passing GNG in good faith; the only possible issue is BIO1E. And the Washington Post story shifts gears from her role in the black hole image to online trolling focused around her, making this more than just about a single event. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (I made the article). She is obviously notable enough to have a profile on here. In the past 48 hours Bouman has probably been covered in the news in every country in the world. The bio has been translated into almost 20 languages and was viewed over 30,000 times yesterday alone. Her TED talk (https://www.ted.com/talks/katie_bouman_what_does_a_black_hole_look_like?language=en) has received almost 3 million views. Her story *should* be on Wikipedia. Jesswade88 (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and adjust her article to reflect the analysis—in reputable secondary sources—about how the media singled her out as the "hero". Heaviside glow (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the subject meets criterion 7 under NACADEMIC due to the press coverage of the subject's work. Any argument that the press should not have covered her work is original research (at best) and should not be taken into account.Spope3 (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:1E. Prominent coverage is primarily due to a facebook photo that went viral. --mikeu ^talk 20:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Almost all Caltech professors have in some way been revolutionary in their fields, so this is good indication that the Bouman article is notable. (This article is much better than many others about non-notable academics!) If keep votes keep winning, I suggest WP:SNOW. OtterAM (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Her notability doesn't hinge on whether she was the principal person behind the the images (Bouman and her colleagues have openly declared that it was a group effort). WP:BIO is predicated on non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, and there is plenty of that here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, I suggest WP:SNOW because this article is two links away from the Main Page and is being accessed very frequently, so it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia to have the AfD tag on top. OtterAM (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Unlike the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps case, Bouman has received substantial focused coverage from many major news outlets, and even as part of a team she played a leadership role, but the perhaps the disproportionate level of coverage to her share of the project should be clarified. Reywas92^Talk 20:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't know that "her story needs to be told" is a justification for a WP article. WP:1E is pretty clear; even the sources like the NYT note that the press coverage she's received is of outsize significance to her actual role in the project. If this ultimately does pass muster, it will be more due to press/social media celebrity, which again, is not necessary indicative of notability if it is not WP:SUSTAINED. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, press coverage is exactly indicative of (and more or less synonymous with) notability, as defined by GNG. What it isn't indicative of is significance, but that's a different thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an important nuance that you're missing (along with others)—WP:SUSTAINED press coverage is what establishes notability, not a sudden burst of coverage. WP:TOOSOON also applies. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, WP:RAPID. Ahiijny (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as the subject meets WP:GNG. With regard to BLP1E concerns, it was held recently in the AfD discussion about Saikat Chakrabarti that coverage of other aspects of the person's like (which our article on her details a fair bit of) satisfied those concerns even if the coverage was in news stories otherwise about the "1E". -sche (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets criteria under WP:NACADEMIC due to *extensive* press coverage (including multiple secondary sources) over the past 48 hours. Recommend editing article to reflect disproportionate amount of press coverage received and reiterate that she is one of the many researchers behind the photograph of the black hole. Soulsinsync (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Shit like this is exactly why en.wp is such a sausage party. Gamaliel (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the media did give her way too much unasked for credit for a discovery made by a large international team. However, she does pass the notability criteria on her own. OtterAM (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Jealous bros should not cry each time a woman is part of an achievement. Gwalters69 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some undue weight, but that doesn't means she isn't notable. Maybe article should be trimmed a bit, but deletion is unjustified. If the sources highlight her, and they do, then arguing "she was just 1 in 200" is just a personal opinion. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This might be a good place for a speedy decision to be made, to protect the reputation of Wikipedia. It looks like keeps are very clearly winning. OtterAM (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep wide variety of coverage in a variety of media, from general outlets to more specialist, plus the academic she’s just taken up. David Underdown (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.