Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tabetha S. Boyajian

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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.  Sandstein  20:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tabetha S. Boyajian

Tabetha S. Boyajian (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)
Withdrawn by nominator: Wikipedia can't follow its own notability guidelines, because of aliens. Geogene (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Geogene (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Geogene (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An eponymous star and colloquial search term suffices for notability. kencf0618 (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The star isn't officially named after her, that's just what some astronomers sometimes call it around the office. Further, even if it were an official name, it wouldn't qualify as notability (one of the guidelines says that having a planet named after you doesn't make you notable, but I can't seem to find that one right now.) This person is only mentioned in the context of some papers they co-authored and briefly mentioned in news sources that talk about this particular star; that isn't grounds for making an article about them. See WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Geogene (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lead author. And it seems silly to leave the eponymous aspect hanging. kencf0618 (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lead authorship isn't enough, per WP:NACADEMIC. Geogene (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of that I am well aware, but as a WP:Inclusionist I prefer to wait on further developments rather than having others reinvent the wheel (à la Gamergate and Deep Dream). Both had been deleted, back in the day; both have become substantial articles since. kencf0618 (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The object is certainly very peculiar, and even assuming it has an entirely natural (ie, non-alien) explanation, it is likely to remain notable enough to make the name (eg, Jocelyn Bell, for pulsars) notable. So I would say wait a while and see what develops. It is notable at the moment. Wwheaton (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. The article is currently WP:UNDUE on a single paper that is evidently not even published yet. (And I agree that the "Tabby's Star" bit is irrelevant.) That said, Boyajian does have a list of accomplishments in astronomy amounting to an h-index of 16 – this is somewhat borderline for the subject. I think the most accurate characterization of her is an extremely-promising post-doc. Agricola44 (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
An h-index of 16 is certainly not notable in itself. WNACADEMIC mentions significant impact in their scholarly discipline, which means impact on science itself, not impact on news media. Impact on her field may very well happen with all the follow-up observations, but has not yet happened, so that would be speculation. The star itself is highly interesting though, and I can see Wwheaton's argument. Gap9551 (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formally, Keep: I do tend to be ahead on the curve regarding notability, and c'mon, she's only the most notable astronomer on this planet... kencf0618 (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally want to keep the article too, but that is not relevant. As I understand it, an AfD is about interpreting the guidelines, not about what we want ourselves. In general I think the notability criteria for academics are too high. Lifelong prominent professors are typically considered not notable (unless they have exceptional achievements), while a kid who hits a few tennis balls in the right tournament is notable. Gap9551 (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You changed my mind. She after all, has done something positive. If her fame rests on a phenomenon which turns out to have ephemeral interest, then things will change. But the article needs more information. TomS TDotO (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It would seem as though the entirety of the subject matter's encyclopedic significance is based around her relation to the astronomical anomaly KIC 8462852- there is nothing mentioned about her life or career beyond KIC 8462852, which is still a discovery under investigation. Until there is some development that characterizes KIC 8462852 as being something that changes our perspective on the fundamentals of astronomy, I see no reason why this article should remain. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

  • WP:BLP1E is mentioned above, and it says among other things: We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met with the third condition being If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. I'd say this third condition is not met; the event was notable (given the amount of press), her contribution is clearly substantial (as lead author), and also well documented (she is mentioned often in media covering the discovery). So WP:BLP1E can't be used against her having an article.
  • Then let's look at WP:GNG. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material may be the main issue here. I think she received significant coverage (usually not as main topic but that's not required by the guideline).
  • She may not meet WP:ACADEMIC, though arguably she made a significant discovery, which is enough to qualify these guidelines (see Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Specific criteria notes). But it is not certain that her discovery is currently significant in astronomy, and we can't speculate whether it will be.
  • However, WP:GNG states: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline [...] So she doesn't even have to meet both WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. One is enough. Therefore I think the guidelines qualify her as notable and I will change my vote. Gap9551 (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per my arguments above. Gap9551 (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per User:Gap9551's arguments above. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how being the lead author in the first paper on this star is so substantial that it warrants a biography article. I also don't see enough secondary sources about the subject to justify such an article, per WP:PSEUDOBIOGRAPHY. Geogene (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being lead author is almost certainly a substantial contribution to the discovery. There are exceptions in some fields (e.g., when a student doing almost all the work isn't granted being first author by their professor) but that doesn't apply here. And according to WP:BLP1E a substantial contribution means that the 'notable for one event' concern doesn't stand when it comes to creating a biographical article or not.
I can see your concern that there isn't a lot of material for a balanced biographical article, and I admit that WP:PSEUDO and WP:BLP1E are partially contradictory. But there are lots of articles about less notable people than her (but formally notable enough for wikipedia) with very short articles (shorter than this one). So there being little material is in many cases not used as an argument to delete articles. Just as an example, every Olympic participant since 1896 is considered notable (WP:NOLYMPICS) although the majority from small countries never achieved anything notable in their sport, let alone have relevant biographical information available (one random example for illustration: Bert Bergsma). The various guidelines are not always fully consistent. I think in this case the notability criteria are met, and concerns about having enough material are of less weight. At least there is some other relevant material with proper references, such as employment, a (prestigious) Hubble fellowship, and more research related achievements/results. Gap9551 (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly like to raise the sports-related notability guidelines, but you have to admit, very few athletes make it to the Olympics. But arguing that is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Geogene (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very few? Actually very many athletes make it to the Olympics. More than 10,000 just at the 2012 Summer Olympics. I wonder how many academics biographical articles are created every year, probably less than that number. And there are many more sportspersons with biographical articles who didn't compete at the Olympics than who did. I just wanted to bring up that issue for some context. Gap9551 (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, I just checked on the Grammy Nominees, and not only the artists, but their songs seem to have articles on Wikipedia. I would not dare to suggest that such ephemera are not encyclopedic. I don't mention this as the argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or as relevant to the present discussion. Just that I couldn't not tell somebody about it. TomS TDotO (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have just added details of her doctoral and Hubble Fellowship work. It is clear that her Hubble Fellowship work contributed significantly to the characterization of Kepler-61b, as acknowledged by the lead astronomer of that investigation. that means at least two significant contributions to astronomy already, and I've no doubt the article can be further extended. She is secretary and steering committee member of the Stars and Stellar Physics Division of the International Astronomical Union (details, that can be added to the article when convenient) so is also making an administrative contribution to astronomy at the international level. --Mirokado (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, which is normal scientist stuff, and therefore doesn't confer notability. What disappoints me about the AfD process is that everybody forgets that the majority of people working in their respective disciplines never become notable, only the most exceptional 10% or so do, usually at about the end of their careers. Geogene (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 'other material' doesn't have to be of formal notability level in itself. It is just to make a more well-rounded article, to address the PSEUDO issue. Only one event or achievement has to be notable. Gap9551 (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Along those lines, given her accomplishments where does she fall within the graph of notability of American Astronomers on Wikipedia? Are they all more stellar than her (pun intended)? kencf0618 (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once someone receives significant coverage they are notable regardless if people forget. See WP:NTEMP.Davidbuddy9 (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep *Very* notable as she is the one that has spotted the unusual light curve of KIC 8462852 which has literally exploded in the media in just a few days spurring around the idea of a Dyson sphere made by Aliens in orbit around the star. Just do a quick Google search, Seti is getting involved in this and its just headline after headline. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But it probably won't be aliens, someone will produce a reasonable explanation for the lightcurves and then everybody will forget this. WP:NOTCRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS. Geogene (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCRYSTAL? Really? Wikipedia here is not doing the predictions its the outside source. Plus It was never mentioned on her article that it was likely aliens I was just describing the current hype that has been going on for more than 3 days now? At the moment scientists are stumped, it cannot be a dust cloud (As there would be excessive infrared light which there is not) and comets have been ruled out from what I heared. Still I'm not going to change my stance (if you were expecting me after suggesting me to read over Wikipedias policies) because of her contributions to the Hubble Fellowship as well. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, you are using a crystal ball yourself by speculating people will forget about it. Gap9551 (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even notice that, thanks for pointing it out! :D Davidbuddy9 (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the work going on with KIC 8462852 is probably her most notable as mentioned above she did some notable Hubble Fellowship work to investigate the characteristics of Kepler-61b. In my opinion I think that she is notable, although the recent light curve discovery played a huge role in her relevance. QuentinQuade (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Completely ignoring KIC 8462852, I would still argue that see is notable not so much about the Hubble fellowship work with Kepler-61b as everyone is tossing around here, but also that he has multiple roles in the IAU. Her roles are:
  • Secretary of Division G Stars and Stellar Physics
  • Member of Division A Fundamental Astronomy
  • Member of Division B Facilities, Technologies and Data Science
  • Member of Division F Planetary Systems and Bioastronomy
  • Member of Division G Stars and Stellar Physics
  • Steering Committee Member of Division G Stars and Stellar Physics

She is part of a division that study's G, F, A, and B-type stars in the IAU plus everything that everyone else is saying including Hubble fellowship, Kepler-61b, and the light curves of KIC 8462852. This is a notable person! We just need to add these into the main article page! 184.146.181.133 (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable for (of course) the light curve as well as the Hubble Fellowship/Kepler-61b and roles in the IAU (as posted above) 184.151.37.244 (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. The minor academic-administrative work listed by 184.146.181.133 does not imply notability. The article is mostly sourced by press release. The subject does not pass any criterion of WP:PROF. And the media blip about her discovery fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E. The nominator's withdraw message cannot be used for a speedy close because there are dissenting opinions. The nominator's sarcastic message that we have to ignore all our notability precedents because aliens seems an accurate assessment of the discussion above, but that's not the same as having a policy-based reason for a keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't need to pass any criterion of WP:PROF provided she passes WP:GNG, as stated in GNG. This has already been mentioned above by the way. WP:BIO1E says If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. I think both parts of this line apply. WP:NOTNEWS, item 3 (Who's who), is more difficult. It can be argued both ways; some say she is notable for more things. Even if passing this criterion is questionable, she passes several other formulations of similar/related criteria, like WP:BLP1E as mentioned above, and WP:BIO1E. And additionally, WP:GNG, which holds a lot of weight, I think. Gap9551 (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, when you claim about many of your fellow contributors in this discussion that they 'ignore all our notability precedents', it is a good habit to back it up with specific arguments. Gap9551 (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aliens isn't being used as an excuse, however the possibility that could be aliens is a huge factor in its notability. Just Google KIC 8462852, as you can see huge press coverage. Huge. I agree with Gap9551 here it clearly passes WP:GNG. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KIC 8462852 clearly passes GNG, yes. How does that save Boyajian from WP:BIO1E? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein:My point of view. WP:BIO1E states: multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, I think that Tabetha S. Boyajian does meet this requirement as you can take the countless independent sources that Davidbuddy9 linked talking about her discovery. We can combine this to make her a notable person which would meet the requirements in this guideline. As stated she does meet others such as WP:GNG. QuentinQuade (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't have to pass WP:PROF to be notable. It has already been explained why she doesn't need to pass that guideline, so it would be helpful if you argue why that explanation is wrong according to you. The fact that Boyajian is an academic doesn't mean that passing WP:PROF is the only way for her to achieve notability. Gap9551 (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nsk92:GNG States: "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 she technically doesn't need to pass WP:PROF. As for WP:BIO "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" which was stated by @QuentinQuade:. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is over 133,000 headlines and articles that could be used to determine notability with news ones being made almost every hour. QuentinQuade (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tabetha_S._Boyajian&oldid=1068838986"