Deletion of Sarah Ballard

Comment: Note 1 in  emphasizes that , 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,  is there for academics who are notable in spite of their failure to satisfy GNG. As others have pointed out, Dr. Ballard has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and the attention that she's received as a voice against harassment in astronomy seals the deal for me. Best Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: WP:ACADEMIC states that it is "an alternative" to  and independent of it. So a subject is notable if it meets either criterion. As Ballard has been shown to be the subject of substantial independent coverage at space.com, KIRO Radio, Public Radio International, CSNE and elsewhere, she passes the GNG notability test. Each delete argument above only considers the criteria of ACADEMIC and is therefore invalid and the article should be kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: My understanding is that  is more relevant than  because Sarah Ballard is not a figure with "significant coverage" as required for GNG. As the expression goes, everyone has their 15 minutes of fame, which seems to have generated a few brief mentions of Sarah Ballard on some news stations and blogs. (This is not atypical for postdocs, since public outreach is often a requirement for positions like Carl Sagan postdoctoral fellowships.) However, none of these mentions suggests that she is generally well known. Instead, she seems to be a typical postdoc, making good, incremental scientific progress in an interesting field. Although I didn't specifically mention it in the nomination above, I agree with the others that  applies in this case
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: It might be useful to note that per  (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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)

Comment: Looks like she's on track for eventually passing  but  to be there yet (by citation counts or any other of the  criteria). Note that the kind of named postdoctorate that she has is very different from the kind of named full professorship that #C5 would count as notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:TOOSOON||WP:PROF)

Comment: per . Sarah Ballard has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: It's clear that this article will be kept. Though I disagree, I would like only to illustrate here the shoddiness that inevitably results: the article is mostly supported by http://sites.psu.edu/astrowright/2015/06/02/imposter-syndrome/ blogs (with trivial mention), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ll0xQVE7nA YouTube videos, http://static1.squarespace.com/static/566f2b72d8af10aa5eabf59a/t/56f4aa6f01dbae402c11ef62/1458874991415/Ballard_longform_CV.pdf Ballard's own CV and http://www.drsarahballard.com/ personal website, https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.1561 Arxiv manuscripts, http://news.mit.edu/2015/3q-sarah-ballard-astrophysics-and-gender-equity-science-1113 institutional PR, and various other http://csne-erc.org/engage-enable/post/tips-defeat-your-inner-imposter webcruft. Most of the 2 dozen source are like this and I'm saddened if this is what all of you take as acceptable . The http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/14/uc-berkeley-astronomy-professor-quits-amid-sexual-harassment-allegations Guardian piece is obviously RS, though it only has a trivial mention of Ballard in the context of the Marcy incident. The https://www.boston.com/news/science/2015/10/16/local-astronomer-helped-bring-attention-to-issue-of-sexual-harassment-in-science boston.com source is somewhat better, but that again is Marcy-related. I would urge the "keeps" to find proper sourcing, because the article, as it now stands, does not satisfy requirements of BLP
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I have to regrettably observe that this article is another case in which boosters (in this case for articles on women) are misdirecting the discussion. For those who do not know or who are willfully looking past the way in which the dynamics of "big science projects" work...this case is entirely typical: a post-doc is lead author on a paper that represents a team effort of dozens (sometimes hundreds) of people, all of whose names are on the paper, and an excited but not terribly informed media contact the first author for talking points. The philosophical error of some of the above arguments, which basically amount to "there are sources, so GNG!", is that PROF was developed because a very large fraction of academics would otherwise qualify exactly in this way. (One might view this from the perspective of statistics in that academics, as a cohort, are not a random sampling of the population. Rather, they are highly biased ''toward'' notability....hence the need for PROF.) So, we judge academics (which Ballard is) against a different standard. However, in Ballard's case there's more because of the "big science" aspect ... the media could have contacted anyone else, for example the senior author, or her supervisor David Charbonneau (the 2nd author). The internal decision-making process on author order is a major issue within academia (why was Charbonneau not the first author?), but usually a good supervisor will put a grad student or postdoc first because they know how the dynamics of publicity work. Consequently, it's extremely disingenuous to make the claim (as some panelists do above), that these are ''Ballard's'' discoveries and ''that'' is why there are sources and ''these sources'' are why she is notable. '''It comes down to something that has been observed numerous times before: it is close to impossible to separate out a grad student or post-doc's contributions from her advisor's/lab's/research team's because mere appearances from author list (and it's accumulated benefits) can be deceiving''' &ndash; that is why  (in the absence of ''conclusive'' demonstration of notability) is the judicious interpretation of ''all'' such cases
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: With very few exceptions, post-docs are 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: I don't know how many of the "keep" eds here are familiar with academic procedure, but I gather it's not too many. Post-docs work under the supervision of an advisor. It is just as correct, if not more, to say that these are David Charbonneau|Charbonneau's discoveries &ndash; 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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)