Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Chael

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is a WP:BIO1E case. There are only two opposing views, and only one of these makes a cogent argument. The other is an appeal to WP:IAR, which only works if it is explained how exactly ignoring the rules in this case would improve Wikipedia. But no such argument is made here. Sandstein 08:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Chael

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There is already some discussion of his potential notability on his talk page, where the consensus so far is that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON and that any coverage of him belongs in other articles at this point.

He is a postdoc born in 1990/91, who earned his bachelor's degree in 2013 and who just recently started his career in research. He was one of over 300 people who contributed to the Event Horizon Telescope project. While the project is notable itself, it doesn't in itself confer individual notability to the over 300 people who were involved with it. Many members of the team have in fact emphasized that the image was the result of a large collaborative effort and that it isn't appropriate to credit one or a few individuals with it. He also doesn't claim any such credit. This kind of tabloidization, based on the "genius myth"[1], also harms science, as pointed out by some interviewees in a recent NYT article that discussed the case.

The relevant guidelines for assessing his notability are WP:PROF, WP:GNG and WP:1E.

He clearly isn't anywhere near passing WP:PROF – our notability guideline for academics. Those not already familiar with WP:PROF should read the criteria.
While it is possible to be notable under WP:GNG, all the media coverage that he has received relates to single comment he made on social media in response to an image of someone else that was also discussed in social media. That is a textbook case of WP:1E and would at most merit a redirect to a more appropriate article where the issue is covered.

Clearly there is no basis in policy here for keeping the article, other than as a redirect.

Wikipedia has well established standards and procedures for notability, and we can't be bullied into ignoring them by people on social media who lack familiarity with our procedures. Articles like this, and indeed articles on much more accomplished scientists, are routinely challenged on notability. His or anyone else's gender plays no part at all in the considerations of his or anyone else's notability; I'm generally opposed to the phenomenon of creating articles on postdocs or other junior academics the moment they are mentioned in the media, regardless of their gender, when we have specific criteria for academics that set the bar so much higher. I'm also stating here, for the benefit of anyone recruited via social media to come here, that this is a discussion among Wikipedia editors of his notability based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines – it is not a vote. Tataral (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tataral (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PROF and WP:BLP1E. 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 WP:BLP1E. 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). wumbolo ^^^ 21:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notability guidelines. The black hole image received wide national coverage (as the subject also made news defending Katie Bouman, including on CNN, the Washington Post, People magazine, Huffington Post, Fox News, NBC News, and Astronomy magazine, to name a few. It appears a 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 WP:BLP1E. Besides the significant role the subject played in simulating the Black Hole image, his notability is also shown in his having received a NASA Hubble fellowship and a 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 WP:GNG. Also, can the nom User:Tataral please name the source of the 300 number of researchers working on the black-hole image? I cannot find that mentioned anywhere. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Which notability guidelines and criteria specifically? It does not follow from the fact that the black hole image itself has received media coverage that Chael is also notable, and it hasn't been demonstrated that the image is mainly his work, as opposed to a collaborative effort in which he played a part along with many other people, or that his role was such a large one compared to those other people. The number 300+ was mentioned in a recent article in The Washington Post, but I see that the number 200+ is also mentioned by many sources[2]. It doesn't matter for this discussion whether it was 200+ or 300+.
- Also, a dissertation award from one's own university doesn't confer any notability, as anyone who has ever read WP:PROF will be aware of. What constitutes a "a highly prestigious academic award" under WP:PROF is discussed in detail and it's stated explicitly that "internal university awards are insufficient for this purpose" and that "victories in academic student competitions at [...] university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements [...] do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1".
- There is no evidence of him being an assistant professor anywhere (he is only listed with the title Graduate Student on the Harvard website), and the rank of assistant professor does absolutely not confer any notability. The WP:PROF criterion based on academic rank requires "a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution", at the very opposite end of the career spectrum. In general an assistant professor is a neophyte academic. --Tataral (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It is imperative that we delete this page as soon as possible. I've just checked, and the Wikipedia servers are completely out of space. We've amassed too much knowledge, and are sinking under the sheer weight of it. People who Google things are coming to our site, and we simply cannot keep up anymore! Indeed, if we do not delete this right now I might not even have enough space to finish typing this sente TheOther Bob 23:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a joke, right, User:TheOtherBob? Please strike through your !vote so that it is not included and counted as part of this discussion. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 1st is thataway <===. Besides, we've ordered fresh supplies of virtual paper and are expecting delivery any microsecond now. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The established rules of Wikipedia are against this article: specifically, WP:BIO1E, as well as WP:BLP1E, 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 WP:ACADEMIC, 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 prior AfD about this event.) MureninC (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The other AfD was based on largely the same rationale as the one outlined here. However, while neither Chael nor Bouman are notable as academics (WP:PROF), there is a difference between them in the coverage they received (and thus their GNG-derived notability); the coverage of Bouman (most of it from after the article was created and indeed nominated for deletion) has been much more extensive and focused directly on her, while the coverage of Chael was merely about him weighing in on the coverage of Bouman itself, and it was of a much more limited and narrow (1E) nature. I therefore don't think there is a relevant precedent either way here. --Tataral (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This may well not have been the article creator's intent, but it comes across as a WP:POINTy "what about the men?" creation as part of the sexist backlash against Katie Bouman's new-found fame for the black hole image. Like Bouman, it is too early in his career for WP:PROF notability. And like Bouman, participation in the project by itself is not cause for notability (not even enough of one to save this from BIO1E); the question is the depth and long-term significance of the media coverage specifically about the subject. Unlike Bouman, who has had in-depth profiles published on her in connection with the black hole image story and then a second wave of coverage about the sexism, Chael is not singled out among the other 200 researchers on that project in the media coverage of the project itself. The only non-trivial coverage of Chael himself is for his elevation as a hero by the sexists and for his repudiation of that elevation. So the media coverage is both significantly less extensive and also more problematic with respect to BIO1E (the only thing he is known for is that some trolls picked his name out of a hat among all the other men they could have picked). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bouman's 2nd wave of coverage was directly connected to the reaction to the first wave of coverage, and in an unhappy way. I don't think keeping Bouman's article satisfies WP:BLP1E and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. wumbolo ^^^ 06:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant here, except inasmuch as Chael's case is clearly much weaker, so if you don't think she should be notable then you should agree that Chael isn't. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against possibly recreating at a later date, as it seems plausible enough that he might come to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. (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 WP:PROF#C2; his fellowship is 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 WP:PROF#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). XOR'easter (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2019 (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.