Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:22, 4 May 2019

If you came here because the subject of this article mentioned it, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Sarah Tuttle

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Sarah Tuttle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass NPROF or GNG. She's an assistant professor, her h-index is 13, and she hasn't won any major awards. From what I can tell, Tuttle was appointed as the lead for the Hobby–Eberly Telescope's VIRUS detector. is incorrect. One source linked to that lists her as a "former co-PI" under a PI and alongside two other co-PIs. The other is her describing what she's going to talk about when she gave a seminar (as is very common in academia), but doesn't say anything about her being a lead of this project or what her role was at all. The next claim, She is leading a spectrography project for the Apache Point Observatory. is very vague, ("a" spectrography project?) and is sourced to an interview. Her being a guest on a podcast while a graduate student is not at all notable. And the final claim Tuttle contributed to American Astronomical Society workshops and supported new guidelines to build a more diverse and inclusive environment is cited to two things that she herself wrote. Natureium (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - core policy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Notability states: If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it. The article does not contain (and I could not find) any independent sources... let alone enough to satisfy PROF or any other more general notability guideline. -- Netoholic @ 01:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  That is not a core policy, or a policy at all. That's a section pointing to "other principles", and it refers to a guideline. Leviv ich 20:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  WP:V is in fact a policy. Are you referring to something else? Natureium (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  WP:Verifiability or WP:V is a policy, but WP:V#Verifiability and other principles is, as the name suggests, a section about the Verifiability policy and other principles. In the "Notability" section of "Verifiability and other principles" (aka, WP:V#Notability), we see a one-sentence summary of the Notability guideline, or WP:N. Thus, WP:V#Notability is a pointer to a guideline, not a policy. Leviv ich 20:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. I can find multiple independent sources on GS, but they are not enough to satisfy WP:Prof#C1 in this highly cited field WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC).

  By GS I assume you mean Google Scholar, and, while there are independent sources citing specific points within her co-authored work - there wouldn't be independent sources for biographical information on the person - an important distinction. -- Netoholic @ 03:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination (which is a very thorough piece of work - well done, Natureium). As much as I support having more articles about scientists here, I can't see how she comes close to satisfying any relevant notability criteria.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Doesn't pass PROF nor GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Did you know that women academics are twice as likely to be nominated for deletion as you would expect from the proportion of women among Misplaced Pages biographies? My strong impression is that, regardless of the fairness of the resulting discussions, this extra scrutiny that biographies of women face leads to a disproportionate outcome. Although this article itself looks hard to defend, and the nominator has also been active in creating biographies of women, its nomination here is a direct result of a discussion at ANI related to the creation of articles about women, and therefore its nomination here is a direct result of its subject being female. Such targeted deletion of articles on female academics produces very bad optics for Misplaced Pages, already known for being hostile to women. Now that we have a nomination we should address the notability of the subject honestly and without bias, but there are a lot of other less-fraught topics that the people involved could more constructively spend their efforts on in future nominations. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not that I think that we should be working toward any particular "ideal" proportion of deletion discussions because there are a lot of factors, but maybe we could also equalize your findings by looking more closely at male academic entries and start nominating them if found to have few or no independent sources. That seems better than implying we should reduce our standards for female academics and/or just simply nominate them to AfD less often. Also, being "nominated for deletion" is not the same as "deleted", so you aren't even addressing the outcomes in that small sample size. -- Netoholic @ 04:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  So, we shall reduce our scrutiny on female biographies and/or not nominate female bios, because there are worse topics to delete? ∯WBG 07:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  The thing you fail to acknowledge here is that they face higher scrutiny to begin with. That's the whole point. It's not that you should give them special lenience, it's that editor unconsciously give them less. That's the whole point of hidden biases and structural discrimination, which is just one aspect in which Misplaced Pages handles itself just like any other institution, Policy or not. François Robere (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe that is because more of them are created that would fail notability?Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

But more of them aren't created. We have 18% women bios and 82% men bios. Do you think of all the notable people in the world, 82% are men? Or 50% are men? That's how we know either our policies, or our execution, or both, is way off. Leviv ich 20:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you really think that 50% of all notable people are women? I suppose if you're a man you may have never noticed that notable men have outnumbered notable women for all of history. Natureium (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, or close to it. "Notable" does not mean "well-known". It's not about fame, it's about whether the person is worth noting, not whether they are noted. (It's notable not noted.) Show me a notable man, I'll show you a notable woman or two. We could play that game all night. For the rest of our lives, even. The difference is that history mostly recorded the notable men; that doesn't mean notable women didn't exist. And it's a whole 'nother ballgame when we're talking about BLPs, like the one at issue, where we don't have to correct history's biases, we just need to avoid perpetuating biases of our own. Leviv ich 20:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• David Eppstein, I'm not sure how that's relevant to the lack of notability for this individual article. If you'd like to help create biographies of woman that do pass notability, there's a link to a list on my userpage. Natureium (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  David Eppstein, what you say is largely true, but we all know that User:Jesswade88 would not have created this article if the subject was not female, and that for some time the majority of new bios of scientists created have been of females. Some of these are done without enough consideration of notability. So it is not too surprising if they are the most common in AFD debates. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod The majority of new creations on scientists are women?? Let's look at some example from User:AlexNewArtBot/MathSearchResult (as an example, as it often includes scientists in other disciplines and since there doesn't appear to be a comprehensive listing of new articles on all of the sciences in one place).

• May 2: After eliminating 2 non-scientists, we have 2 women and 2 men.
• May 1: 1 woman and 3 men.
• April 30: 1 man.
• April 29: 1 man.
• April 28: 1 woman and 5 men.
• April 27: 1 non-scientist.
• April 26: 3 non-scientists.
• April 25: 2 non-scientists.
• April 24: 1 non-scientist, 1 man.
• April 23: 3 non-scientists.
• April 22: 1 man.
• April 21: 2 non-scientists, 1 man.
• April 20: 1 woman, 1 man.

So at least recently we have a total of 5 women and 15 men, around 25%. This is better than the 18% ratio among current Misplaced Pages biographies, worse than the 35% ratio of women to men among recent academic deletion discussions (hence my assertion that women are far more likely than men to be taken to deletion discussion) and far far from a majority. I suspect you have fallen prey to the standard "see any noticable representation of women at all and think that it is a majority" fallacy. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No, but it could be that I look more at AFD lists and WIR talk than the rather unreliable/imprecise bot lists (for example Nia Imara probably appears as an artist). I'm also certainly influenced by my annual survey of whether new FRS's already have WP articles when the news is announced. For the 2nd year running, women are much more likely to already have articles than men. I'll be writing this up soon. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

That seems to be only mathematicians, and according to a quick google search, 15% of tenure-track mathematicians are female, so even 25% seems high. I think if you picked a different category, there would be more biographies of women being created. Natureium (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not "only mathematicians"; for example, Kate Hevner Mueller was a psychologist and Clara Brink Shoemaker was a crystallographer who worked on molecular biology. XOR'easter (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain how this bot works? I clicked the link and got this, so I assumed it was looking for something related to that in new articles. Natureium (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod Bad woman! Bad! Writing bad articles about other bad women? I never... who would've guessed? She should only write about MEN! How rude of her! And she clearly doesn't know how to write, this "Imperial College London" research associate! Who let her in anyway?! François Robere (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Now you're being very silly - especially to someone who has organized and led workshops on writing female science bios - but you have to explain the notabily requirements carefully. None of these were brought to AFD by the way. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• • Please stop marching around your little survey as a broad fact or evidence of gender bias. The portion of new scientist articles that are on women would be a better comparison than to all articles since many of those nominated were recently created. And how many of those recent AFDs were also articles created by the same user? Reywas92 22:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. If anything the Donna Strickland case argues that there is a different standard for achievement within the professorate based on gender. The argument, "She's an assistant professor," is not particularly compelling in light of recent experience. I don't have strong opinions on this article in particular, but the comments found here are indicative of a conflation of impartiality with "bias blindness." Applying a universal standard of achievement within the academy is not reflective of inherent gender inequalities. --ElectricBuddha (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't know how much we can infer from a single case, but there is actual data that Misplaced Pages is imposing a double standard of achievement on women. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination argument. FWIW, cannot overemphasize upon the need of religiously abiding by WP:INTEGRITY whilst writing about BLPs. ∯WBG 07:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per the nom's thorough WP:BEFORE. ——SerialNumber54129 10:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete How much of this is sourced to her work? Not notable at this time.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Note ], a call to aRMS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

 Administrator note Off-topic and personalized discussion redacted. Everyone reminded to focus on the topic at hand, and uphold the expected standards of civility. Abecedare (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete WP:TOOSOON. Sgerbic (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete fails our notability guidelines, as established repeatedly above. It's unfortunate that the subject of this article has fallen back on claims of "misogyny and racism." I can almost understand the misogyny claim, although it's still an insensitive misuse of the term by an individual who never should have had an article and only had one created because she is a woman. But racism... really? This person is an academic? It is a good thing that we have so many editors fighting against systemic bias by creating more articles about women, and I hope that this effort will eliminate the gender gap. But our notability guidelines still apply and thus it really isn't helpful to see special pleading from David Eppstein when he knows that this article is hard to defend. And I'm glad to see Fae getting shouted down above for their gross, offensive comment. It creates a chilling effect when users have to fear that participation in these discussions may cause them to be accused of sexism (or even complicity in the sexism of others). Seriously, it would be great to have more articles on women. Just make sure that they are notable before you create the article. Lepricavark (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I think it's disingenuous of Misplaced Pages to pretend that every page here meets the standards that would have been required by a print encyclopedia. There are pages and pages of special interests on music, sports, etc. etc. that I think are totally fine, but clearly would never pass a criterion of real "notability". But when it comes to science and scientists, the fact that a piece of science has not yet come to the attention of journalists is used to argue against notability, resulting in ridiculous situations like (female) Nobel Prize-winners not having a Misplaced Pages page. Journalists should not be the arbiter of whether science is notable. I would like to see a Science Misplaced Pages discussion about a criterion that would work better. BTW please can this not be the h-index? We all know this to be a flawed measure. I am not logging in to post this comment because I fear that logging in would expose my own created pages to undue scrutiny by people who don't like this argument. I feel bad about this but that's the way it is. 134.174.140.104 (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems like you don't understand notability then. Journalists don't have anything to do with this. The standards that apply here are:

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE).
4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

Natureium (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

What journalists do most definitely affects how we evaluate those criteria, particularly C7 but also C1 and C4. XOR'easter (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course, it is often the easiest way to establish notability, but it is not the only way.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I suppose that's true. Essentially, a journalist could make someone more notable, but not less notable. If they fulfill those criteria, they're notable even if journalists ignore them entirely. It would make for a pretty short article though. Natureium (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Which is a problem, but not one for here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Disingenuous again. By far the most common factoid used to establish notability is an article in some kind of publication. But science articles are not considered "reliable". For example, this paper "reviews the main progress in the last decade" and cites one of Tuttle's papers. Why is that not "significant impact in their scholarly discipline'? 134.174.140.104 (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

We can use books, as to the paper, I do not have access to it so cannot say, but only citing one paper, no that would not be a significant impact. Hell there are plenty of notable scientists, its not as if we have no articles on any.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss my actions, hence why I have not explained my cunning and holmesian way of finding this, nor will I participate other then this curtsy message. However nor will it stop me from posting here, or voting in any other AFD's.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I was originally inclining to saying this article was too soon, but finding her recognition by the NAS began to tip the balance for me. The sum total of her outreach work and the press recognition for her involvement in science activism persuaded me that she passes WP:PROF#C7. At worst, thanks to the improvements since the AfD began, this is a "draftify" situation — even if it is "too soon", the current content is good enough to save somewhere out of the way and build upon. XOR'easter (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I found a heap of sources about her and the Lilith Fund, of which I picked three. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and the other delete !votes above. aboideau 17:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep It's marginal, but not ridiculous. She has notable achievements, has won national awards, has been quoted in the national press. The article is very well-written and well-documented. When one takes a look at the hundreds thousands of pages here for people who have done less, and have less to show for it, this page and her achievements shine by comparison. ubiquity (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. She's been mentioned as an expert in half a dozen outlets, does significant scientific and outreach work, and is the author or co-author of 70 papers and letters. If any of you still feel a strong urge to delete something, there are tens of thousands of stubs that await your attention. François Robere (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and deleters, plus the last two keepers, who try and fail to make a case for notability. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:PROF. For the users arguing that the article is "very well-written" see WP:MASK. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An assistant professor who isn't anywhere near passing WP:PROF, insufficient evidence of passing GNG too. Her campaign on Twitter against this AfD certainly doesn't help. --Tataral (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Editorial Comment I think such articles are generally fine. It's a well-written article based on reliable sources. But our inclusion guidelines don't allow for such articles. I understand why (coverage as a bright line for notability etc. etc.) but I'm not thrilled with the outcome in this case. Hobit (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

While it may be an interesting article to read, most of the sources (at least when I went through them last night) are not what we would consider reliable sources. (For example, wordpress and medium, and sources she wrote herself, are not reliable sources for blps) Natureium (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

References

1. See "IEEE Fellows Elected as of 1 January 1975". 2017. Retrieved 13 September 2017.
2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1002007108002050?via%3Dihub. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

• Keep Come on, she has an h-index of 13 (that is, 13 publications that have been quoted at least 13 times) in physics, where people don't publish a paper a week like the biomedical people seem to do. Ubiquity has said it nicely - I get the feeling the only real reason for deletion is that she is female. Misplaced Pages is not really known for representing non-male scholars very well... --WiseWoman (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Her most widely cited works (of which she is one of numerous co-authors and not the first author) are cited 26, 23 and 21 times, which isn't high for a field like physics. H-index alone isn't necessarily a very good indicator of notability. --Tataral (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The median number of citations for physics papers is somewhere near 10: https://physics.bu.edu/~redner/pubs/pdf/PT.pdf . Astronomy papers are not cited much more often: https://astrobites.org/2017/10/27/success-in-astronomy-some-surprising-strategies/ . That is comparable to many other fields. e.g psychology - http://geekpsychologist.com/how-many-citations-does-a-typical-research-paper-in-psychology-receive/ . And you seem to be simultaneously saying "Sarah Tuttle's papers have not been cited that much"; which is, again, not true; and "citation metrics alone isn't necessarily an indicator of notability". Those arguments contradict one another. Michaelbusch alternate (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Why are those arguments contradictory? I see no reason why they couldn't coexist. Tataral is saying that the citation argument is not a great one to begin with and doesn't help Tuttle anyway. Not contradictory at all. Lepricavark (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
        • I didn't say that; I referred specifically to h-index. --Tataral (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Right. And that's not contradictory. I get really tired of the strawman arguments from editors who are convinced that their cause is just and that they therefore don't have to be fair to editors who disagree with them. Lepricavark (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia that covers notable people. Most journal papers aren't highly cited and aren't particularly significant. A median number of citations, or slightly more, doesn't confer notability. Noone said "citation metrics alone isn't necessarily an indicator of notability". I specifically referred to h-index, which is just one particular (somewhat arbitrary and as most agree, flawed) method of citation metrics. Her total number of citations, for papers that she co-authored with dozens of other people, is around 400 or something like that. That's ok for someone in an entry-level academic job in a science discipline. It's not enough to earn her a place in an encyclopedia, based on citations. --Tataral (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
        • I understand the criteria for notability. I agree that citation metrics, like the h-index, are not by themselves sufficient for notability. I suggest only that it does not make much sense to bring up the citation count of her papers at all, if you say that they are not relevant. Instead of saying, for example, "notability should not be assessed on the basis of h-index". Michaelbusch alternate (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Tataral did not bring up the citation count. Tataral was replying to someone else who brought up the citation count. This can be seen very easily by reading the post to which Tataral was replying. Also, you still are not quoting Tataral correctly. Lepricavark (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
          • The claim that I have said citation counts "are not relevant" is patently false. I've said no such thing. The only thing I said about citation metrics was that "H-index alone isn't necessarily a very good indicator of notability". Notice the "h-index", "alone", "necessarily" and "a very good" parts of the sentence. Citation counts are clearly relevant in a discussion of a scientist's notability. H-index is not the same as citation counts. I also didn't say we should ignore h-index completely, only that having an h-index of 13 isn't in itself proof of notability. --Tataral (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Please take a look at the list of articles created by Natureium, who initiated this AfD and who I believe is a woman. Your comments about her motives are a personal attack that could not be more inaccurate. Please don't accuse people of misogyny without a very good reason. It is very difficult to have these conversations when editors carelessly cast aspersions. And this type of behavior creates a chilling effect on good faith contributors who don't want to run the risk of being accused of misogyny by someone who does not know anything about them but has a battleground mentality. Lepricavark (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep disclaimer, I made this page (which, incidentally, is why it is being nominated for deletion). Passes WP:GNG. Additionally, Tuttle created the first screen-printed PLED, which is notable in its own right. Further, I don't think it is fair that someone who makes claims like "Do you really think that 50% of all notable people are women? I suppose if you're a man you may have never noticed that notable men have outnumbered notable women for all of history. Natureium 20:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)" should be able to call for women's biographies to be deleted. The decision of who is notable enough for Misplaced Pages should not be made by people who are biased. Jesswade88 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I am removing the quotation as I have apparently misunderstood, I apologise Natureium. I am still voting keep as I think that Tuttle is notable - very few scientists maintain an academic and public engagement record like this - and even fewer succeeded in both solid-state and astrophysics. Jesswade88 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• It is being nominated for deletion because the nominator thinks it does not comply with our notability requirements. That you created it is irrelevant to the nomination. - Sitush (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, it's relevant. Let's not play pretend. Leviv ich 21:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  ... I don't think you understood what I said there, but regardless, none of what you said is a reason that the article would be within notability guidelines. Natureium (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  The persona of the creator is not an argument to keep or to delete, unless (sometimes) the creator is a sockpuppet. I can think of an isolated exception to this, 10 or so years ago, when an admin (PMDrive1061) nuked all articles created by one highly disruptive contributor following a discussion at ANI but that wasn't through the AfD process. An appeal to sentiment at AfD carries no argumentative weight at the point of closure, so there is no point in mentioning it. - Sitush (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  Not an argument to keep or to delete, I agree, but that doesn't mean it's not relevant. Wade's articles have come under extraordinary scrutiny lately. It's not a secret. Leviv ich 21:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  • It is routine and legitimate for an editor, seeing the creation of a series of pages on non-notable subjects by an editor, to look through the editors previous page creations and nominate those that fail WP:GNG for deletion. this is how Misplaced Pages works.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  Sure, it happens often and there's nothing illegitimate about it (I do it myself), but that doesn't mean we should pretend it's not happening or that it's not relevant. For example, it would be insulting to an editor for me to pretend I wasn't putting their edits under the microscope, when I was (science pun intended). Leviv ich 22:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per XOR'easter and WiseWoman. Sometimes, I'm not sure what my colleagues want out of articles. This discussion encapsulates much of what frustrates me about deletion discussions: editors !voting delete arguing two sides of the same coin, and both sides forgetting the underlying purpose of Misplaced Pages. On the one hand, the argument that this is a perfectly well written, well sourced, verified, factual article about somebody interesting is met with pointers to essays like WP:MASK and the suggestion that the argument is essentially WP:ILIKEIT. However, our purpose here is to write an encyclopedia: a collection of interesting, verified knowledge. So it matters that the article meets that purpose. On the other hand, the nomination and much of the analysis isn't a WP:BEFORE search, but rather an analysis of the current sources and claims in the article. So we are judging it by how it's written? Or not? In determining notability, we should be looking at the state of the sourcing, not the state of the article. So, of course it won't meet WP:GNG. Few astrophysicists will meet GNG unless their names are Hawkings or Tyson. That's the whole reason we have WP:NPROF, right? The subject meets NPROF 1 and 7. Why is an h-index of 13 too low? That's 13 works cited 13 times each. That's a lot more impact than professional wrestlers, models, and many other BLP subjects. I'm not aware of any rule or precedent that h-index 13 (or having a few papers cited 25 times each) is too low for NPROF 1 (maybe I'm wrong about that). Another sign of NPROF 1 and 7 impact are the sources. In 2015, Metro UK published her twitter rant. Medium published her "Statement of Solidarity". She wrote a piece in Medium in 2016 that was referred to in a Forbes article ("...what Sarah Tuttle reports on Medium..."). In 2017, she co-wrote another piece that was posted on Medium's The Establishment , which was referred to by the Washington Post. Same year, she was quoted in the Seattle Times ("Experts answer your burning questions..."). In 2018, she was quoted multiple times in Gizmodo. and Inhabitat I know there's more out there, but I stopped looking. Lots of Google Scholar and Google News search results (for the astrophysicist, not just the name) establishing her impact within and outside of academia. And it's a well written article. So keep. Leviv ich 21:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  Levivichich, a useful thing to know when discussing notability is the difference between an article in Forbes, actual articles are assigned by editors , written by professional, paid journalists, and edited before publication, and columns. Forbes has an enormous stable of volunteer columnists who write and post at will - like the columnists at HuffPost. These are not WP:RS and not used to establish notability. Also, being quoted by a journalist as an expert is not WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  WP:SIGCOV is a WP:GNG concept, and as I said, it's not a GNG issue, it's an WP:NPROF 7 issue. The smaller mentions, and the quotes, show an impact outside academia. (And just because it's a blog doesn't mean it's not an RS. I'm good with Forbes, Medium, Washington Post and Seattle Times as showing impact outside academia in this instance.) Leviv ich 22:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  The Forbes item is by Ethan Siegel, a scientist and science writer who is wiki-notable in his own right, and thus it meets WP:NEWSBLOG. XOR'easter (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Small detail: I think The Establishment was an online magazine whose archives are now hosted on Medium, not a thing run by Medium itself. XOR'easter (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Fixed, thanks! Leviv ich 22:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:PROFand diligent searching has failed to produce sources that meet WP:GNG Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON for this physicist at the assistant professor stage of her career . E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Recent improvements to the article make a plausible case for WP:PROF#C7 "substantial impact outside academia"..."may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media". It's not relevant for this that she's relatively junior, or not as heavily cited as one would expect for a more senior academic. And although the Kavli Fellow is not the kind of fellowship that passes WP:PROF by itself, it is also indicative of a certain level of prominence. But my keep is still only weak because the sourcing is weak. Most of the sources are by her, quote her, name-drop her with little detail, or are primary. For a non-weak keep of #C7 I'd prefer to see more independent sourcing of her and her role in science communication. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per XOR'easter, WiseWoman, Levivich. Sarah Tuttle's work meets WP:NPROF Criteria 1 and 7; and the current version of the article reflects that with links to five reliable independent sources that discuss both her engineering & astronomy research and her activism. Disclosure: I know Sarah professionally. When I say her work has had a significant impact on astronomy, I speak from my own knowledge (that does not count as an independent source) -Michaelbusch using alternate account Michaelbusch alternate (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC).
  • And, as a note regarding much of the discussion on this page: The extent of gender bias on Misplaced Pages is extremely well-documented and not subject to dispute. That includes gender bias in articles being suggested for deletion, as noted above. As one way to address that bias, editors should default to keep for articles about people who are not men. Michaelbusch alternate (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    • We're all well aware of the gender gap and the vast majority of us would love for it to be reduced. But creating, and fighting aggressively to save, articles about non-notable individuals is an extremely poor way to fight the gender gap. And when such articles are brought to AfD, it is really frustrating to see the efforts that are made to derail the nomination. Often, these efforts consist of unwarranted attacks on the motives of the nom and the delete !voters. We're volunteers who are acting in good faith. Don't treat us like that. Lepricavark (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Hear, hear. It would also be useful editors participating in these discussions would learn basic stuff, like what constitutes a WP:RS.

• Delete. That wordpress "article" is pure puff. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Would you mind clarifying this, please? The only instances of the string "wordpress" in the article are a link to her CV and a page that is only used to cite her place of birth. Neither of these are what the arguments for WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C7 made by the "keep" !voters are based upon. XOR'easter (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep along the same lines as David Eppstein. The combination of research work, together with the Kavli fellowship which indicates notability within her age group, together with Tuttle's outreach work (which should include social media these days – the TrueSciPhi list here gives some indication) tips the scale for me. I would have preferred to be able to rely on the simpler NPROF criteria such as prizes or fellowships, but without those, and taking into account the combination of C1 and C7, my best estimate is Keep. Markus Pössel (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, per WP:IAR, if anything. The encyclopedia would not be substantially improved by deleting this article. In any case, removing an article about a woman scientist seems hardly a priority while there are 72 entries in Category:Japanese female adult models, 186 in Category:American female adult models, or 89 in Category:Penthouse Pets, with much worse sourcing than this. In another example, there are 17 entries in Category:Penthouse Pets navigational boxes. You get the point. Checking these BLPs out and nominating some for deletion would be more productive than spending community time removing articles on academics, even jr ones. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep I added a new citation to one of her articles, providing further evidence of her meeting WP:PROF#C7 standards for notability. ~Eliz81 00:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates