Deletion of Andrew Chael

Comment: Passes notability guidelines. The black hole image received wide national coverage (as the subject also made news defending Katie Bouman, including on https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/12/us/andrew-chael-katie-bouman-black-hole-image-trnd/index.html CNN, the https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/04/12/trolls-hijacked-scientists-image-attack-katie-bouman-they-picked-wrong-astrophysicist Washington Post, https://people.com/human-interest/male-scientist-claps-back-trolls-discredit-katie-bouman/ People magazine, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/black-hole-katie-bouman-andrew-chael-sexist-trolls_n_5cb08f0de4b098b9a2d2bb5d Huffington Post, https://www.foxnews.com/science/internet-trolls-discredit-katie-boumans-black-hole-project Fox News, https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/first-picture-black-hole-made-katie-bouman-overnight-celebrity-then-n994081 NBC News, and https://astronomy.com/news/2019/04/heres-what-scientists-think-their-first-picture-of-a-black-hole-might-look-like Astronomy magazine, to name a few. It appears a https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/katie-bouman-hardly-knew-what-a-black-hole-was-her-algorithm-helped-us-see-one PBS article featuring Bouman prompted the brouhaha, then social media ran with it. As a member of the team, Chael, according to reliable source reporting, wrote most of the code for one of the 3 software imaging pipelines that simulated the black-hole image, while Bouman wrote the algorithm, which is why the two have been singled out from the black-hole team of researchers (although social media seems to have missed the two's true roles). Thus, Chael's role -- and notability -- in creating the black hole image has been shown in the significant coverage in mainstream news that discussed it and is still covering the issue. This is not a . Besides the significant role the subject played in simulating the Black Hole image, his notability is also shown in his having received a http://www.stsci.edu/stsci-research/fellowships/nasa-hubble-fellowship-program/meet-the-fellows NASA Hubble fellowship and a https://bhi.fas.harvard.edu/news/congratulations-andrew-chael Harvard award for best disertation. Add that to his continuing work on the Black Hole through his post-graduate research work at the Black Hole Initiative and as an assistant professor at Harvard, and notability is shown. The subject clearly passes . Also, can the nom
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:GNG)

Comment: without prejudice against possibly recreating at a later date, as it seems plausible enough that he might come to meet  or . (For example, if he becomes one of the "public faces" of the EHT collaboration during their next announcements, then BIO1E would be irrelevant.) Prizes for "best doctoral thesis" are insufficient for #C2; his fellowship is http://www.stsci.edu/stsci-research/fellowships/nasa-hubble-fellowship-program the kind that pays for a postdoc, not the "lifetime achievement award" that is being elected Fellow of a highly selective society, as required for #C3. I wouldn't object to stashing the page in User or Draft space, since I don't see anything really troublesome about the text itself, and the situation might change within the typical expiration timeframe of Draft pages. Bouman is wiki-notable; Chael isn't (yet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG||WP:PROF||WP:PROF)

Comment: Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: per nom. Fails ,  and . Like the nom mentioned, there are too many scientists. Perhaps we will reach a point where creating articles about scientists will almost be forbidden, but that will be necessary per . If this article is deleted, that would be good precedent to delete Katie Bouman, where in the previous AfD some editors admitted to completely ignoring BLP1E because of a random dubious keep closure of an AfD of AOC's chief of staff (who is not even an academic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PROF||WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The established rules of Wikipedia are against this article: specifically, , as well as , would suggest that it should merely be a '''redirect''' to the actual event that this person is a part of, and they don't (yet) qualify under , either; however, the rules themselves may be wrong, outdated and/or overly-established.  We as Wikipedia editors should exercise our judgement similar to the concept known as Jury nullification, and vote to keep even if the subject is not eligible for an article based on the established rules of kingdom, on the sole basis that we may disagree with said rules.  (In fact, in doing so, we'll be following the precedent already set in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Bouman|prior AfD about this event
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E||WP:BLP1E||WP:ACADEMIC)