Deletion of Phyllis Bolds

Comment: fails , , and .   The sources justd ont exist, nor do the accomplishments that generate such attention in es. Remind page creator, whose face page states: "I use wikipedia to upload the biographies of women, black and minority ethnic and LGBTQ+ scientists who are contributing/ have contributed hugely to science and engineering but haven't had the attention that they deserve... I try and make biography page a day." that we are not here to .  Of course it is true that women were once denied the opportunity to  become scientists.  It does not, however, follow that we can RIGHT this GREAT WRONG by creating a series of article about non -notable women who worked in labs
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:SOLDIER||WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS)

Comment: as to stand alone article as fails , , and . However, she could be briefly mentioned on Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit bomber article page, if RS cited info that is noteworthy is found
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:SOLDIER||WP:GNG)

Comment: No evidence of passing rof. Arguments for  seem based on special pleading and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:GNG||WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS)

Comment: Passes . Article appears to have been updated with more independent reliable sources--see especially news story by Adam Aaro (an Emmy-award winning journo) and the clipping from ''Dayton Daily News''. Bolds's inclusion as a subject in the Visual Voices exhibit "These artists have researched prominent African-American’s (living or deceased) who have made a mark in their field and are role models for the community." also proves notability. GNG does not list a minimum number of required sources; furthermore,  says "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Finally, what proof is there that the technical reports she authored are "low-level"? Her work on aircraft dynamics relative to shock and airplane vibration, especially as it relates to the B-2 Stealth Bomber, seem pretty important to me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NEXIST)

Comment: per . Removing an article about a woman scientist from Wikipedia seems hardly a priority while there are 72 entries in :Category:Japanese female adult models or 192 in :Category:American female adult models, with much worse sourcing than this. Checking those out and nominating some for deletion would be more productive than spending community time on this AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: The sources provided are adequate and so the topic passes .  The article is well-written and so the material should not be deleted per our policies including , , 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:ATD||WP:NOTPAPER||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: Jealous bros or ...should not cry, She is clearly passes WP:BIO, WP:NPROF and WP:NACADEMIC
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: egregious case of attempting to pad up a subject whom, alas!, is not notable.  The padding consists of adding entire papers written up by the subject, but which are either not cited by anyone or having less than 10 cites (lifetime grand total for the person for all papers), i.e., failing .  What does that leave?  A churnalism article written for the local newspaper by ''the public relations officer of the subject's employer'', a family interview, a series of PR/recruitment efforts including "honoring"  by the subject's employer ''whose children are current employees'' (but note: not actual medals nor any genuine, formal recognition), and a paid obituary at Thomasfunerals.com.  Clearly fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV and lack of WP:INDEPENDENT.  All special pleadings and wishes to  ought to be dismissed out of hand
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS)

Comment: per nom. Also, 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: for the time being. I think it is pretty clear she fails , and we are discussing whether she passes . For academics,  is actually typically difficult to pass, since one needs to demonstrate sufficient in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, and very few independent sources are interested in academics, even if they happen to be black women academics. For the moment, I do not see such coverage here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: I'm persuaded there's enough to meet the essence of , i.e. to write a reliable entry for the reader. It does not improve the encyclopedia to delete this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WHYN)

Comment: We won't be able to tick every box on the wikilawyer checklist until a whole lot of primary material on secret government projects becomes available to the people who write secondary sources. In the meantime, it looks safe to presume notability, and this article improves the encyclopedia. I could quote , but I'd rather quote Maya Angelou: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: Passes . Women and black people have historically been passed over in many accounts. Great interest in these people was aroused by the  Hidden Figures (book)|book and film ''Hidden Figures''. Redressing a lack of articles on them is not  but countering Wikipedia:Systemic bias, which is the whole purpose of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS)

Comment: Notable and well sourced 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I agree that there is no evidence in the article of her passing  or , and that the "arguments ... seem based on special pleading and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS". I'm not at all opposed to biographies on female scientists, as long as they are in fact notable, but we don't create articles on people simply because of their gender. As E.M. Gregory noted, we can't "RIGHT this GREAT WRONG by creating a series of articles about non-notable women who worked in labs
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG)