Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Sarah Ballard

2061:

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 Knowledge (XXG). 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. Knowledge (XXG) needs lots of filling of its knowledge holes. I look forward to your positive contributions.

1540:

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,

2115:

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.

1988:: I'd just like to point out that keeping articles like this is very unusual for Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) more resemble a resume service, like Linkedin, and less resemble an encyclopedia. 1737:. 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 1849:. 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. 499:(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. -- 1809:"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. 1323:"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: 1336:

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

1393:

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.

2699:, 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 1742:

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

1025:. 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. 2544:. 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'. 818:

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

1185:

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.

1249:. 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 2148:. 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. 2728:

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

2242:

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

2114:

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 Knowledge (XXG) since 2008 I have had only 1 situation. I spent one full year (all

1322:

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:

1203:

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

521:

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

201:

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

2060:

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

1488:

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

1453:

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 Knowledge (XXG): lose an argument, accuse the other party of assuming bad

1335:

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

1184:

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

613:

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

478:

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),

2694:

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.

1969:

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

1577:

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

1539:

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

1392:

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

1289:

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

1226:

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

817:

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

657:

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

498:

Slippery slope much? FUD that in the future "Knowledge (XXG) will devolve into _______" is not an argument. Editors are always shouting that the future of Knowledge (XXG) is at stake if they don't get their way. Thousands of bad decisions have not brought Knowledge (XXG) crashing down, and this one

2750:

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

2742:

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

2276:

for any Wiki editor to try to guess who "really" deserves the attention. The argument that Knowledge (XXG) 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

434:

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

1554:

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

473:

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

2615:

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

2191:

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

1910:

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

1285:

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

341:

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,

1167:

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

600:

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

577:

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

2732:. 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 2727:

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 Knowledge (XXG), because I like to improve articles. But -- do I need to link to this? -- AfD is not cleanup. Your

1741:

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

2190:

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

1448:

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

2043:. 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. 2271:

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

1756:

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

2165:- 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. 2277:

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

2309:

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:

556:

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 Knowledge (XXG) coverage, in this case women scientists, to be dismaying" is

522:

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).

2222:

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.

1559:

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.

1970:

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,

2781:

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.

561:. 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. 474:

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

2799:

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.

2580:) 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. 2214:. 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 2616:

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. --

880:

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.

448:

sponsored event specifically set up to increase Knowledge (XXG)'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. -

2455:. 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: 630:

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.

938:(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. 1090:

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:

1020:

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

166: 475: 786: 354:

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

2457:"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. 219: 2333:

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,

1227:

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.

895:

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

2281:

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.

1629:. 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 276:

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

2675:

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.

2391:

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.

2459:

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.

2267:. 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 1793:

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,

694:

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

1253:

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

1466:. 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. 1867: 2532:, 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 2498: 2196: 242:. 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 2635:. 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 1489:

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.

1601:. 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. 1254: 746: 2707:

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 Knowledge (XXG) works. --

2218:

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

766: 444:

issues regarding Knowledge (XXG) coverage, in this case women scientists, to be dismaying. The article happens to have been created by me at a University of Washington/

160: 119: 1352:

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.

1199:

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

2704: 2672: 2644: 1873: 1150:

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?

1019:

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 (: -->

961:, 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: 445: 2668: 1876: 2474:

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,

202:

postdoctoral-fellowship awards mentioned in the article, while nice on her CV, are not particularly important information to include in Knowledge (XXG).

2746:

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

1882: 2039:

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

999:

The other authors must not have been notable or we would have media coverage. The coverage is solely about Ballard, which indicates her notability.

654: 2550:

Instead of scolding, you need to spend your time trying to better understand the fundamental notability rules. This is an absurd waste of time. --

2364: 2426:"It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" 1885: 1204:

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

1168:

scientific literature discussing the significance of Ballard's contribution. These secondary sources of course can be repeated in "the media".

1110: 126: 1130:

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 : -->

2743:

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.

2516:

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

2314:– thanks for the sexist assumption – I'm saddened that such attitudes still exist here – sitting out the rest of this discussion. Best. 2092:

rule on a completely different article and was also criticized recently by another user (again on a different article) for not assuming

1419:. 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. 1327: 17: 2195:. I am sorry to see so many editors barrel-scraping a sub-marginal BLP when there issues involving really notable women calling for 1084: 92: 87: 1891: 440:

As a separate statement I find the willingness of the delete !voters to take this ill-considered action in the face of well-known

1870: 96: 1281:, in this case the existence of a person called Sarah Ballard, her work, etc. But they cannot generally be used in this way as 586:

X (transit-timing variation)? The special pleading here seems to be coming from the side downplaying a scientific discovery. -

2452: 2444:

paths to notability. They in no way preclude notability for other reasons because a subject happens to fall under one of them.

1878:. Add to that multiple sources showing she has been discussed as the lead researcher on a variety of projects, in multiple RS 2396: 646: 79: 2093: 2040: 1309: 1215: 1175: 713: 669: 621: 568: 529: 409: 382: 328: 181: 2736:

yourself. Go and delete the source cited. Or, perhaps more diplomatically, discuss the merits of the source or sources at

1040:

We can't use Knowledge (XXG) as a source in these arguments. The editors writing about Kepler 61b may have made an error.

148: 1080:

She is clearly the important person in the discovery of the exoplanet. If she wasn't, her name would not keep coming up.

850:

Just remember "15-minutes of fame" is still notability as notability is not temporary nor does it degrade over time (see

2656: 2831: 1330: 1087: 40: 2170: 1208:

seems a rather poor basis for a nuanced discussion about notability. Also, I cannot view your links to assess them.

609:

scientific discoveries of equivalent lasting scientific scientific import, then it should be a trivial matter to find

2375: 2188: 984:

She did not discover it single-handedly. There were 79 other authors on the paper. Are they all notable too, or not?

935: 542:, which I have pinned notability on in this case, starts with the word "general", the very opposite of "special". - 2528:

explicitly, unmistakably, say that academic guidelines are only one path to notability, and failing those criteria

1506:

No accusation of bad faith. Just a reasonable request for citations, and the facts that those citations support.

2756: 2712: 2564: 2483: 2392: 2343: 2286: 2120: 2085: 2066: 2014: 1854: 1814: 1606: 1565: 1497: 1435: 1357: 1232: 1190: 1155: 1117: 1045: 1004: 966: 685: 645:

I was not the one who invited a comparison to Nobel Prize winners, but you are for some reason perpetuating it.

636: 504: 1555:

only the person the media covered after the exoplanet Kepler was discovered, but she has also been in the media

1303: 1209: 1169: 707: 663: 615: 562: 523: 403: 376: 322: 2243:

some are more like assistants with little original input, but that has to be judged in each case individually.

1722: 578:

because there are so many known pathogens. To reduce it to numbers it would be more reasonable to ask how many

285: 142: 2373:

Caltech's funding application for use of the Spitzer Telescope identifies Ballard as "principal investigator"

1709:

at best - The best parts here are the exoplanets findings, the article is still questionable overall at best.

1630: 695: 610: 372: 2671:

is obviously RS, though it only has a trivial mention of Ballard in the context of the Marcy incident. The

2521: 2421: 1445: 1107: 2809: 2790: 2760: 2716: 2684: 2663:. Most of the 2 dozen source are like this and I'm saddened if this is what all of you take as acceptable 2625: 2621: 2607: 2589: 2568: 2510: 2487: 2400: 2347: 2323: 2290: 2252: 2232: 2174: 2166: 2157: 2124: 2105: 2070: 2052: 2018: 1997: 1979: 1957: 1920: 1902: 1858: 1841: 1818: 1802: 1780: 1727: 1701: 1654: 1610: 1587: 1569: 1549: 1523: 1501: 1483: 1439: 1410: 1361: 1313: 1236: 1219: 1194: 1179: 1159: 1140: 1121: 1063: 1049: 1034: 1008: 993: 972: 947: 917: 890: 871: 831: 798: 794: 778: 774: 758: 717: 689: 673: 640: 625: 595: 572: 551: 538:"All involved special pleading" is quite a claim. Are you including this deletion debate in that? Because 533: 508: 488: 458: 413: 386: 332: 310: 289: 259: 231: 211: 138: 61: 2660: 1450: 2827: 1951: 865: 605:

for his discovery. If the suggestion here is that the subject under discussion made, not just one, but

36: 2595: 2467: 2448: 2429: 2416:

This is a very easy decision. The fact that we are even wasting our time on this suggests some editors

2412:. Sarah Ballard has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. 1966: 897: 659: 427: 399: 243: 198: 2497:

Please do not be rude to editors who you disagree with. I direct your attention to a really important

2440:. A subject can be notable for any number of reasons, and the subject-specific guidelines only supply 2805: 2752: 2708: 2680: 2560: 2506: 2479: 2339: 2319: 2282: 2228: 2204: 2116: 2062: 2010: 1937: 1888: 1850: 1810: 1776: 1602: 1561: 1493: 1491:

Please strike your accusation. It is in bad faith and does not help this discussion or your argument.

1431: 1426:

We also do not discard sources just because an editor does not have access to databases. Please read

1353: 1228: 1186: 1151: 1136: 1113: 1059: 1041: 1030: 1000: 989: 963: 913: 681: 632: 500: 484: 306: 255: 188: 57: 2541: 2437: 2420:, perhaps feeling threatened by the efforts of a few to correct Knowledge (XXG)'s gender imbalance? 2145: 1971: 1794: 1760: 1598: 1579: 1541: 1427: 1022: 855: 819: 298: 273: 2788: 1975: 1879: 1798: 1710: 1697: 1583: 1545: 1458:

requested. If you feel there is anything actionable in the above post, you can either raise it at

281: 174: 2338:. I disagree with you here but I'm not trying to be a jerk or make anything personal. I'm sorry. 1463: 2737: 2636: 2447:

The large number of editors who glance at the article and post a 'delete' !vote, sloppily citing

1273:, which is Ballard's work in this area. News media are reliable on Knowledge (XXG) typically as 1092: 83: 2733: 2471: 2417: 2268: 2192: 2081: 1625:"No press coverage usually indicates no notability." Often this is not true for academics, see 851: 2703:

number of sources are present, not whether a new stub article, barely 6 months old, is shoddy.

2617: 2248: 2215: 2153: 2101: 2048: 1993: 1647: 1516: 1476: 1403: 1298:

guideline for academics than GNG. It is extremely unusual that an academic will meet GNG but

943: 886: 827: 790: 770: 754: 591: 547: 454: 227: 207: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

2826:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2525: 2517: 2264: 2184: 1634: 1626: 1291: 810: 368: 277: 269: 247: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2603: 2585: 1947: 1916: 1898: 1834: 1377: 1339: 1104: 905: 861: 558: 2409: 1941: 1459: 1164: 814: 539: 435:

considers the criteria of ACADEMIC and is therefore invalid and the article should be kept.

431: 395: 364: 154: 2801: 2676: 2502: 2335: 2315: 2278: 2224: 2200: 1772: 1132: 1055: 1026: 985: 909: 480: 302: 251: 53: 2696: 2664: 2304: 2273: 2219: 1246: 2783: 2533: 1693: 1578:

the GNG argument. I finally decided to vote keep on GNG grounds (below). Best Regards,

702:

of the subject. In the sources you have found, the subject is quoted, but there is no

1278: 1112:. All of this coverage shows her passing GNG easily and not just by "local" sources. 75: 67: 2244: 2149: 2141: 2097: 2044: 1989: 1640: 1509: 1469: 1416: 1396: 1381: 1343: 1258: 939: 882: 845: 823: 750: 587: 543: 450: 223: 203: 2520:

dead horse even after several editors painstakingly spelled out for you that both

1333: 1324: 1245:

link is broken for me, and seems like a search engine. That's not what we call a

1101: 1098: 1095: 441: 113: 2599: 2581: 2433: 1933: 1912: 1894: 1385: 1347: 650: 602: 2451:

on their way out the door, are behaving irresponsibly in a way that borders on

1332:. She is the one who discusses the possible find here before it was confirmed: 2640: 1016: 958: 2187:, despite the finding that she is the Principal Investigator of the project. 2432:

or any other subject-specific guideline. It would be like trying to delete

1424:

That's a serious allegation: to accuse another editor of faking an article.

658:

the Nobel Prize work, it should be a trivial matter to find such sources.

1430:. If you want access, you can get it like I did through the Wiki library. 1257:. Note that there, I had initially voted to delete, until someone quoted 582:

of X exist. Or more to the point in this case, how many have introduced a

2307:

for any Wiki editor to try to guess who 'really' deserves the attention"

2376:"Spitzer Space Telescope - Directors Discretionary Time Proposal #541" 2361:: Dr. Tony Phillips of NASA states: "A team led by Sarah Ballard..." 1454:

faith. I would admonish you to focus on the matter at hand as I have

2436:

because her scientific discoveries aren't significant enough to pass

1269:

is: it is a reliable authority making an evaluative claim about the

2751:

that the guideline does not say what the edtior thought it said. --

1866:

She more than meets GNG in her case showing bias in the workplace:

2652: 1277:: they can repeat what others say in an area, they can be used to 614:

researcher, I hope you appreciate why I see this as problematic.

479:

WP will eventually be reduced to an inclusive list of all people.

2648: 2820:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1767:

demonstration of notability) is the judicious interpretation of

2096:. I strongly suggest that Thor take back his previous comment. 2088:

has recently been accused of disruption for violation of the

787:

list of United States of America-related deletion discussions

706:

assessment of the subject's individual impact on the field.

220:

list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions

1146:

Again, my proof that she is significant is that she is the

1109:. Entire article about her and her planet-finding method: 1415:

It sounds to me as if you are accusing me of bad faith,

2577: 2183:. Consensus seems to be that the subject does not pass 1537:

Comment about presuming notability from media coverage.

109: 105: 101: 2424:

says right at the top that we will keep an article if

1255:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Maryna Viazovska

173: 2705:

Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) is a work in progress

680:

See my sources below. It was very easy to find them.

653:

in 1907, the subject of a centennial article in the

268:. Looks like she's on track for eventually passing 187: 1265:assessment of the subject's work. That is what a 2540:he never achieved anything of note, and so fails 1462:, but it seems like it should be simpler just to 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2834:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2530:does not preclude notability by other criteria 2428:. Anything that meets GNG has no need to pass 2365:"Exoplanet Measured with Remarkable Precision" 747:list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions 197:Non-notable postdoc in astronomy based on the 8: 785:Note: This debate has been included in the 767:list of Science-related deletion discussions 765:Note: This debate has been included in the 745:Note: This debate has been included in the 350:. But they are not useful for ascertaining 218:Note: This debate has been included in the 1692:per Rich and Megalibrarygirl. Meets GNG. -- 1086:lists her name, not the others. She is the 1597:I understand the point you're making now, 784: 764: 744: 297:. With very few exceptions, post-docs are 217: 2576:the article has been edited extensively ( 2418:have a bone to pick about something else 1106:. Source says she discovered 4 planets: 904:notable woman astronomer take a look at 662:is not the same as notability. Thanks, 655:Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 359:. So it clearly and directly fails the 1833:We need more articles like this one.♦ 934:: It might be useful to note that per 430:states that it is "an alternative" to 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 696:difference in quality of the sources 2084:pure and simple. I might note that 342:local media can be used to confirm 2363:Phillips, Tony (August 18, 2014). 1421:Please strike your comments above. 24: 2094:Knowledge (XXG):Assume_Good_Faith 2041:Knowledge (XXG):Assume_good_faith 1940:and others above, clearly passes 1290:under that guideline. After all 2009:From usertalk:Thor Dockweiler: 611:high quality scholastic sources 2263:Ballard does not need to pass 1054:Please see my comments below. 647:Charles Louis Alphonse Laveran 1: 2594:hatted a bunch of this. See 1750:is why there are sources and 1294:is actually supposed to be a 2637:blogs (with trivial mention) 2463:There is burden expected to 1444:That's a red herring. I am 348:the existence of the subject 1131:50 authors is significant. 809:: My understanding is that 394:per Thor Dockweiler, under 2851: 1911:categories to be notable. 476:Art+Feminism Regina Meetup 2536:because as professional 2086:User talk:Thor Dockweiler 584:new method of discovering 280:would count as notable. — 2823:Please do not modify it. 2810:17:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 2791:17:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 2761:18:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 2717:16:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 2685:16:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 2626:06:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 2608:04:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 2590:04:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 2569:04:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 2511:00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 2488:20:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 2401:20:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 2348:15:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 2324:14:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 2291:14:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 2253:17:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 2233:12:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 2175:05:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 2158:00:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 2125:11:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 2106:08:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 2071:06:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 2053:21:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC) 2019:06:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 1998:21:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC) 1980:18:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC) 1958:20:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 1921:18:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 1903:18:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 1859:18:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 1842:10:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 1819:16:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 1803:07:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 1781:17:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 1754:are why she is notable. 1728:04:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 1702:04:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 1655:17:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 1611:19:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC) 1588:18:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC) 1570:16:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 1550:07:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 1524:18:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 1502:17:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 1484:17:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 1440:16:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 1411:15:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 1362:14:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 1314:10:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 1237:02:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 1220:01:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 1195:00:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 1180:00:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 1160:00:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 1141:00:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 1122:00:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 1064:17:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 1050:00:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 1035:15:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC) 1015:Even our own article on 1009:00:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 994:01:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC) 973:00:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC) 948:02:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC) 918:04:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC) 891:01:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC) 872:01:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC) 718:11:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 690:14:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 674:00:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 641:00:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 509:20:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 414:19:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 62:09:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 32:Please do not modify it. 1374:fixing my broken ping: 832:16:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 799:14:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 779:14:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 759:08:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 626:12:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 596:12:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 573:12:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 552:12:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 534:11:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 489:17:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 459:08:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 387:11:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 333:12:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 311:15:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC) 290:23:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC) 260:22:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC) 232:22:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC) 212:21:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC) 2740:or the RS noticeboard. 2380:Spitzer Science Center 1206:argumentum ad googlium 822:applies in this case. 813:is more relevant than 649:was the winner of the 2312:"I hope he continues" 2082:Knowledge (XXG):Libel 2697:Questionable sources 2659:, and various other 2393:Mary Mark Ockerbloom 446:Cascadia Wikimedians 1763:(in the absence of 1446:assuming good faith 2738:Talk:Sarah Ballard 2453:disruptive editing 367:. Also, it fails 2653:Arxiv manuscripts 2548:not rude? Please. 2167:CoffeeWithMarkets 1653: 1522: 1482: 1409: 1283:secondary sources 976: 936:WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES 801: 781: 761: 698:, the latter are 346:of the work, and 234: 2842: 2825: 2786: 2657:institutional PR 2649:personal website 2645:Ballard's own CV 2538:motorcycle racer 2390: 2388: 2386: 2372: 1956: 1954: 1950: 1839: 1746:discoveries and 1725: 1720: 1652: 1650: 1638: 1521: 1519: 1507: 1481: 1479: 1467: 1408: 1406: 1394: 1389: 1351: 1306: 1267:secondary source 1212: 1172: 971: 906:Virginia Trimble 870: 868: 864: 849: 710: 666: 618: 601:Laveran won the 565: 559:special pleading 526: 406: 379: 357:with the subject 325: 192: 191: 177: 129: 117: 99: 34: 2850: 2849: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2832:deletion review 2821: 2784: 2753:Dennis Bratland 2709:Dennis Bratland 2561:Dennis Bratland 2480:Dennis Bratland 2384: 2382: 2374: 2371:. NASA Science. 2369:Science Springs 2362: 2340:Megalibrarygirl 2303:"it is in fact 2283:Megalibrarygirl 2117:Thor Dockweiler 2063:Thor Dockweiler 2011:Thor Dockweiler 1952: 1946: 1945: 1938:Thor Dockweiler 1851:Thor Dockweiler 1835: 1811:Megalibrarygirl 1723: 1711: 1648: 1643: 1639: 1603:Megalibrarygirl 1562:Megalibrarygirl 1517: 1512: 1508: 1494:Megalibrarygirl 1477: 1472: 1468: 1432:Megalibrarygirl 1404: 1399: 1395: 1375: 1354:Megalibrarygirl 1337: 1304: 1275:primary sources 1247:reliable source 1229:Megalibrarygirl 1210: 1187:Megalibrarygirl 1170: 1152:Megalibrarygirl 1114:Megalibrarygirl 1042:Megalibrarygirl 1001:Megalibrarygirl 866: 860: 859: 843: 708: 682:Megalibrarygirl 664: 633:Megalibrarygirl 616: 563: 524: 501:Dennis Bratland 404: 377: 363:requirement of 323: 134: 125: 90: 74: 71: 48:The result was 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2848: 2846: 2837: 2836: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2794: 2793: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2720: 2719: 2689: 2688: 2669:Guardian piece 2641:YouTube videos 2629: 2628: 2610: 2592: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2534:Michael Jordan 2414: 2413: 2403: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2328: 2327: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2237: 2236: 2178: 2177: 2160: 2146:User:Astro4686 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2109: 2108: 2075: 2074: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2022: 2021: 1983: 1982: 1960: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1785: 1784: 1759:– that is why 1731: 1730: 1704: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1646: 1641: 1631:WP:SCHOLARSHIP 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1552: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1515: 1510: 1475: 1470: 1464:prove me wrong 1402: 1397: 1390: 1305:Sławomir Biały 1287: 1271:primary source 1211:Sławomir Biały 1171:Sławomir Biały 1125: 1124: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1013: 1012: 1011: 979: 978: 977: 951: 950: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 875: 874: 835: 834: 803: 802: 782: 762: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 709:Sławomir Biały 665:Sławomir Biały 617:Sławomir Biały 564:Sławomir Biały 525:Sławomir Biały 519: 518: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 511: 493: 492: 462: 461: 437: 436: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 405:Sławomir Biały 378:Sławomir Biały 373:WP:SCHOLARSHIP 352:the notability 336: 335: 324:Sławomir Biały 321:, per above. 314: 292: 282:David Eppstein 263: 236: 235: 195: 194: 131: 70: 65: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2847: 2835: 2833: 2829: 2824: 2818: 2817: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2792: 2789: 2787: 2780: 2776: 2773: 2772: 2763: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2749: 2744: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2718: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2631: 2630: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2614: 2611: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2522:WP:Notability 2519: 2515: 2514: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2466: 2462: 2460: 2454: 2450: 2445: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2422:WP:Notability 2419: 2411: 2407: 2404: 2402: 2398: 2394: 2381: 2377: 2370: 2366: 2360: 2357: 2356: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2308: 2306: 2300: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2275: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2221: 2217: 2216:Charbonneau's 2213: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2189: 2186: 2182: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2161: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2136: 2135: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1968: 1964: 1961: 1959: 1955: 1949: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1928: 1927: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1889: 1886: 1883: 1880: 1877: 1874: 1871: 1868: 1865: 1861: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1843: 1840: 1838: 1832: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1753: 1752:these sources 1749: 1745: 1740: 1736: 1733: 1732: 1729: 1726: 1721: 1718: 1714: 1708: 1707:Move to Draft 1705: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1688: 1687: 1656: 1651: 1645: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1576: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1558: 1553: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1538: 1535: 1525: 1520: 1514: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1492: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1480: 1474: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1452: 1447: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1407: 1401: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1334: 1331: 1328: 1325: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1207: 1202: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1166: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1144: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1108: 1105: 1102: 1099: 1096: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1083: 1079: 1076: 1075: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1038: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 997: 995: 991: 987: 983: 982: 981: 980: 974: 969: 968: 965: 960: 956: 953: 952: 949: 945: 941: 937: 933: 930: 929: 919: 915: 911: 907: 903: 899: 894: 893: 892: 888: 884: 879: 878: 877: 876: 873: 869: 863: 857: 853: 847: 842: 839: 838: 837: 836: 833: 829: 825: 821: 816: 812: 808: 805: 804: 800: 796: 792: 788: 783: 780: 776: 772: 768: 763: 760: 756: 752: 748: 743: 742: 719: 715: 711: 705: 701: 697: 693: 692: 691: 687: 683: 679: 678: 677: 676: 675: 671: 667: 661: 656: 652: 648: 644: 643: 642: 638: 634: 629: 628: 627: 623: 619: 612: 608: 604: 599: 598: 597: 593: 589: 585: 581: 576: 575: 574: 570: 566: 560: 555: 554: 553: 549: 545: 541: 537: 536: 535: 531: 527: 520: 510: 506: 502: 497: 496: 495: 494: 490: 486: 482: 477: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 460: 456: 452: 447: 443: 442:systemic bias 439: 438: 433: 429: 426: 423: 422: 415: 411: 407: 401: 397: 393: 390: 389: 388: 384: 380: 374: 370: 366: 362: 358: 353: 349: 345: 344:the existence 340: 339: 338: 337: 334: 330: 326: 320: 319: 315: 312: 308: 304: 300: 296: 293: 291: 287: 283: 279: 275: 271: 267: 264: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 238: 237: 233: 229: 225: 221: 216: 215: 214: 213: 209: 205: 200: 190: 186: 183: 180: 176: 172: 168: 165: 162: 159: 156: 153: 150: 147: 144: 140: 137: 136:Find sources: 132: 128: 124: 121: 115: 111: 107: 103: 98: 94: 89: 85: 81: 77: 76:Sarah Ballard 73: 72: 69: 68:Sarah Ballard 66: 64: 63: 59: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 2822: 2819: 2778: 2774: 2747: 2745: 2741: 2729: 2700: 2632: 2618:Lemongirl942 2612: 2573: 2549: 2545: 2537: 2529: 2475: 2464: 2458: 2456: 2446: 2441: 2425: 2415: 2405: 2383:. Retrieved 2379: 2368: 2358: 2311: 2302: 2298: 2260: 2259: 2211: 2180: 2179: 2162: 2142:User:Brianhe 2137: 2089: 2038: 1985: 1984: 1962: 1929: 1863: 1862: 1846: 1845: 1836: 1830: 1829: 1790: 1771:such cases. 1768: 1764: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1738: 1734: 1716: 1712: 1706: 1689: 1594: 1574: 1556: 1536: 1490: 1455: 1451:WP:VAGUEWAVE 1423: 1420: 1299: 1295: 1282: 1279:verify facts 1274: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1259:Peter Sarnak 1250: 1242: 1205: 1200: 1147: 1081: 1077: 962: 954: 931: 901: 840: 806: 791:Lemongirl942 771:Lemongirl942 703: 699: 606: 583: 579: 424: 398:rather than 391: 361:independence 360: 356: 351: 347: 343: 317: 316: 294: 265: 239: 196: 184: 178: 170: 163: 157: 151: 145: 135: 122: 49: 47: 31: 28: 2777:. In fact, 2596:WP:BLUDGEON 2468:WP:ACADEMIC 2449:WP:ACADEMIC 2434:Hedy Lamarr 2430:WP:ACADEMIC 2359:Strong Keep 2027:"Deplorable 1967:WP:ACADEMIC 1948:Davidbuddy9 1847:Strong Keep 1837:Dr. Blofeld 1378:Dr. Blofeld 1340:Dr. Blofeld 1263:independent 1251:independent 1201:independent 1088:lead author 957:discovered 898:WP:Too soon 862:Davidbuddy9 704:independent 700:independent 660:WP:ITEXISTS 651:Nobel Prize 603:Nobel Prize 580:discoverers 428:WP:ACADEMIC 400:WP:ACADEMIC 244:WP:Too soon 199:WP:ACADEMIC 161:free images 2802:Agricola44 2779:snow keep. 2677:Agricola44 2673:boston.com 2542:WP:ATHLETE 2503:Xxanthippe 2442:additional 2438:WP:SCHOLAR 2336:Agricola44 2316:Agricola44 2279:Agricola44 2225:Agricola44 2201:Xxanthippe 1965:Note 1 in 1773:Agricola44 1765:conclusive 1761:WP:TOOSOON 1456:repeatedly 1428:WP:PAYWALL 1133:Xxanthippe 1056:Agricola44 1027:Agricola44 1023:WP:TOOSOON 1017:Kepler 61b 986:Xxanthippe 967:Farmbrough 959:Kepler 61b 910:Xxanthippe 856:WP:DEGRADE 820:WP:TOOSOON 481:Agricola44 303:Agricola44 299:WP:TOOSOON 278:WP:PROF#C5 274:WP:TOOSOON 252:Xxanthippe 54:Sarahj2107 2828:talk page 2785:Montanabw 2197:attention 2090:3-reverts 1972:Astro4686 1795:Astro4686 1757:deceiving 1744:Ballard's 1694:Rosiestep 1599:Astro4686 1580:Astro4686 1542:Astro4686 902:seriously 37:talk page 2830:or in a 2734:WP:FIXIT 2661:webcruft 2472:WP:BLP1E 2269:WP:BLP1E 2193:WP:BLP1E 2080:This is 1791:Comment. 900:. For a 852:WP:NTEMP 375:, etc. 120:View log 39:or in a 2701:minimum 2633:Comment 2526:WP:PROF 2518:WP:PROF 2299:Comment 2265:WP:PROF 2261:Comment 2245:Gap9551 2212:Comment 2185:WP:Prof 2181:Comment 2150:Gap9551 2098:OtterAM 2045:OtterAM 1990:OtterAM 1986:Comment 1932:as per 1735:Comment 1644:ławomir 1635:WP:PSTS 1627:WP:PROF 1513:ławomir 1473:ławomir 1417:Slawekb 1400:ławomir 1384:, and 1382:Ipigott 1346:, and 1344:Ipigott 1302:PROF. 1292:WP:PROF 940:OtterAM 932:Comment 883:OtterAM 846:OtterAM 841:Comment 824:OtterAM 811:WP:PROF 807:Comment 751:Brianhe 588:Brianhe 544:Brianhe 451:Brianhe 369:WP:PSTS 270:WP:PROF 248:WP:Prof 224:OtterAM 204:OtterAM 167:WP refs 155:scholar 93:protect 88:history 2667:. The 2600:Jytdog 2582:Jytdog 2546:That's 2499:matter 2410:WP:GNG 2385:16 May 2301:. Re: 2207:). 1942:WP:GNG 1934:SusunW 1913:SusunW 1895:SusunW 1739:toward 1719:wister 1715:wister 1575:Reply. 1557:before 1460:WP:ANI 1386:Sadads 1348:Sadads 1296:weaker 1243:Nature 1165:WP:GNG 1082:Nature 815:WP:GNG 540:WP:GNG 432:WP:GNG 396:WP:GNG 365:WP:GNG 318:Delete 295:Delete 266:Delete 240:Delete 139:Google 97:delete 2730:exist 2665:WP:RS 2476:Lazy! 2305:WP:OR 2274:WP:OR 2220:WP:OR 1963:Keep. 1953:Talk 1649:Biały 1595:Reply 1518:Biały 1478:Biały 1405:Biały 1286:area. 867:Talk 182:JSTOR 143:books 127:Stats 114:views 106:watch 102:links 16:< 2806:talk 2775:Keep 2757:talk 2713:talk 2681:talk 2647:and 2622:talk 2613:Keep 2604:talk 2586:talk 2574:keep 2565:talk 2524:and 2507:talk 2484:talk 2465:read 2408:per 2406:Keep 2397:talk 2387:2016 2344:talk 2320:talk 2287:talk 2249:talk 2229:talk 2205:talk 2171:talk 2163:Keep 2154:talk 2144:and 2140:per 2138:Keep 2121:talk 2102:talk 2067:talk 2049:talk 2015:talk 1994:talk 1976:talk 1930:Keep 1917:talk 1899:talk 1864:Keep 1855:talk 1831:Keep 1815:talk 1799:talk 1777:talk 1748:that 1724:talk 1698:talk 1690:Keep 1633:and 1607:talk 1584:talk 1566:talk 1546:talk 1498:talk 1436:talk 1358:talk 1310:talk 1241:The 1233:talk 1216:talk 1191:talk 1176:talk 1156:talk 1148:only 1137:talk 1118:talk 1078:Keep 1060:talk 1046:talk 1031:talk 1005:talk 990:talk 964:Rich 955:Keep 944:talk 914:talk 887:talk 854:and 828:talk 795:talk 775:talk 755:talk 714:talk 686:talk 670:talk 637:talk 622:talk 607:four 592:talk 569:talk 548:talk 530:talk 505:talk 485:talk 455:talk 425:Keep 410:talk 392:Keep 383:talk 329:talk 307:talk 286:talk 272:but 256:talk 246:for 228:talk 208:talk 175:FENS 149:news 110:logs 84:talk 80:edit 58:talk 50:keep 2748:not 2578:dif 2470:or 1769:all 1300:not 1261:'s 858:). 402:. 189:TWL 118:– ( 52:. 2808:) 2759:) 2715:) 2683:) 2655:, 2651:, 2643:, 2639:, 2624:) 2606:) 2598:. 2588:) 2567:) 2513:. 2509:) 2501:. 2486:) 2478:-- 2399:) 2378:. 2367:. 2346:) 2322:) 2289:) 2251:) 2231:) 2199:. 2173:) 2156:) 2123:) 2104:) 2069:) 2051:) 2017:) 1996:) 1978:) 1944:. 1936:, 1919:) 1901:) 1893:. 1890:, 1887:, 1884:, 1881:, 1875:, 1872:, 1869:, 1857:) 1817:) 1801:) 1779:) 1700:) 1637:. 1609:) 1586:) 1568:) 1548:) 1500:) 1438:) 1380:, 1360:) 1342:, 1329:, 1326:, 1312:) 1235:) 1218:) 1193:) 1178:) 1158:) 1143:. 1139:) 1120:) 1103:, 1100:, 1097:, 1094:, 1062:) 1048:) 1037:. 1033:) 1007:) 996:. 992:) 946:) 916:) 908:. 889:) 830:) 797:) 789:. 777:) 769:. 757:) 749:. 716:) 688:) 672:) 639:) 624:) 594:) 571:) 550:) 532:) 507:) 487:) 457:) 412:) 385:) 371:, 331:) 309:) 301:. 288:) 258:) 250:. 230:) 222:. 210:) 169:) 112:| 108:| 104:| 100:| 95:| 91:| 86:| 82:| 60:) 2812:. 2804:( 2755:( 2711:( 2687:. 2679:( 2620:( 2602:( 2584:( 2563:( 2505:( 2482:( 2461:" 2395:( 2389:. 2342:( 2326:. 2318:( 2285:( 2247:( 2235:. 2227:( 2203:( 2169:( 2152:( 2119:( 2100:( 2073:" 2065:( 2047:( 2013:( 1992:( 1974:( 1915:( 1897:( 1853:( 1813:( 1797:( 1783:. 1775:( 1717:T 1713:S 1696:( 1642:S 1605:( 1582:( 1564:( 1544:( 1511:S 1496:( 1471:S 1434:( 1398:S 1388:: 1376:@ 1356:( 1350:: 1338:@ 1308:( 1231:( 1214:( 1189:( 1174:( 1154:( 1135:( 1116:( 1066:. 1058:( 1044:( 1029:( 1003:( 988:( 975:. 970:, 942:( 920:. 912:( 885:( 848:: 844:@ 826:( 793:( 773:( 753:( 712:( 684:( 668:( 635:( 620:( 590:( 567:( 546:( 528:( 503:( 491:. 483:( 453:( 408:( 381:( 327:( 313:. 305:( 284:( 262:. 254:( 226:( 206:( 193:) 185:· 179:· 171:· 164:· 158:· 152:· 146:· 141:( 133:( 130:) 123:· 116:) 78:( 56:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Sarah Ballard - Knowledge (XXG)

Index