Alvine Kamaha: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP -  per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) .  See UCLA source: How UCLA’s Alvine Kamaha helped build the world’s most sensitive dark matter detector , and 5 mentions from the American Physical Society .  A Google search brings up numerous international multi-year results for Alvine Kamaha and her work.  — Maile ( talk ) 16:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  This is a high-citation field and her high-citation publications are all with huge numbers of coauthors, so we don't have WP:PROF#C1 .  Only full-professor endowed professorships count for WP:PROF#C5 , not her "Keith and Cecilia Terasaki Chair" for an assistant professor.  And three of the four sources we have are non-independent, and don't provide evidence of passing WP:GNG rather than WP:PROF .  That leaves only the possibility of WP:PROF#C2 through the Edward A. Bouchet Award [5] .  The questions should be: is that award enough, by itself?  Alternatively, are there enough additional in-depth independent sources, like the "black voices in physics" source, to pass WP:GNG isntead?  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 16:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Science , Canada ,  and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment seems to be borderline on WP:ANYBIO #C2 for The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field .  Specifically regarding subject's contribution to LUX-Zeplin .  Definitely a part of the enduring historical record in its field, definitely a recognized contribution by the subject.  Is the subject's contribution "widely" recognized though?  — siro χ o 22:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Since the Edward A. Bouchet Award doesn't have its own article as just one of dozens APS gives , I'm going to go with no, that's not enough for notability.  There are hundreds of people majorly involved in LUX-Zeplin, so I'd want more than a release from her own university to establish wide recognition.  Reywas92 Talk 01:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment In order to argue The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field we need independent and WP:RS to actually say so.   I did not see any independent RS detailing her exact contribution to the experiment.  The only independent source seems to [6] which seems reliable but on closer inspection just quotes a press release by UCLA which cannot be considered independent and talks about the 250 scientists involved.  Another source [7] describes her as a "calibration operations coordinator".  -- hroest 20:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Not seeing notability under WP:PROF; I checked all the papers with >=50 citns on GS and they are all heavily multi-author.  Agree the Edward A. Bouchet Award isn't the level of award that PROF covers.  On GNG...  The Black Voices in physics piece has enough editorial material to count to GNG.  There is some indept coverage of her winning the Bouchet award; the Icimac & L'Economie articles (both in French) seem long enough for significant coverage but my French isn't good enough to be sure they aren't translated press releases.  Additionally, via Proquest, AllAfrica.com has "Alvine Kamaha - Un brillant triomphe camerounais aux Etats-Unis de la physique moderne"; the other hits there seem to be verbatim press releases.  Might be a case of too early career.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 04:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Poking around a bit more wrt the award, per Lajmmoore's comment below, it looks like it is less early career than I had thought based on our article on the APS awards.  The other recipients I checked mostly seem to have been clearly notable under WP:PROF before receiving it.  Happy to go with Keep based on that and meeting GNG with the sources I mention, plus the APS award bio [8] which describes her work on LUX-ZEPLIN as a "leading role".  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 09:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think there's just enough for GNG, but also I would dispute the point on the award - the APS (& the field it represents) is very large (50,000 members), so its logical there would be a range of awards proportionate to its scale, and I note the awards are both subject specific and more pastoral.  Lajmmoore ( talk ) 23:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I added a note at Women in Red Lajmmoore ( talk ) 23:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Generally "more pastoral" awards do not confer notability under WP:PROF , imo at least ("a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level"; emphasis added) though obviously receiving them can lead to independent coverage meeting GNG.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 04:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The American Physical Society (APS Physics) confers the Edward A. Bouchet Award on some of the nation's outstanding physicists for their contribution to physics.  [1] (I used 'pastoral' to describe other APS awards e.g. for leadership but I think that was the wrong term to use.  This award is for ability and contribution.  I assume it contributed to the notability of all these researchers: Anthony M. Johnson , Peter Delfyett , Joseph Johnson III , Michael Duryea Williams , Juan Maldacena , Sylvester James Gates , Oliver Keith Baker , Jorge Pullin , Chanda Prescod-Weinstein , Herman Brenner White , Homer Neal , Alfred Msezane .  Prescod-Weinstein is closest in age to Kamaha, and I'd argue that the fact Kamaha has been awarded such a prestigous award at such a young age adds to her notability, not detracts from it.  I also reject the comment earlier in the discussion that the award doesn't contribute to notability because it doesn't have a Wikipedia page of its own.  As we all know there is huge bias in the content on WP (which I know lots of people in this discussion are actively working to counter), so the fact that an award named after a black scientist hasn't been written by a predominately white editorship should be taken into consideration when assessing notability.  Lajmmoore ( talk ) 09:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My thoughts: if we have to struggle over whether or not a single award makes this person notable, they are not; thus the AfD.  Yes, we make allowances for academics, but let's not reduce the value of those who actually unquestionably qualify per SNG.  Atsme 💬 📧 15:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a general question as to whether subjects working in academia who don't meet WP:PROF should have an article; imo, if they meet another guideline (eg AUTHOR, GNG), failing PROF is not an obstacle.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 01:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This contention has always been accepted.  Unfortunately it doesn't work here as there are not enough other things.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 02:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] References ^ "American Physical Society, Edward A. Bouchet Award" .  Archived from the original on June 15, 2010.  Delete for now.  Cites are slender for this high cited field and author numbers are high so it is not clear what her contribution has been.  WP:Too soon , which means maybe in a few years time.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 04:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Keep I agree with Espresso Addict's analysis.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 20:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes NBIO, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" and ANYBIO#1, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor".  The sources in the article discussing their work and accomplishments show article meet guidelines.  // Timothy :: talk 02:28, 21 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus