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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naia Butler-Craig[edit]

Naia Butler-Craig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Although Butler-Craig certainly has a prestigious career forthcoming, at its current status this page likely violates WP:ACADEMIC. The closest justification for Notability is the cited Forbes 30 for 30 award, which would fall under Criteria 2, but I am not sure we can consider a Forbes 30 for 30 award in the same tier (or even a tier below that) of academic awards and honors as a Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc. This article fails all other Criteria (1, 3-8) in WP:ACADEMIC. At it's current state I support its deletion. Paulstar57 (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With only 5 citations in GS fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment Keep. She does not meet WP:PROF. I think she should be evaluated as a science communicator and advocate. To that end I added a few citations to the page where she is quoted in the media. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes are not not enough for notabilty. In-depth sources are needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I should have indicated that more was to come, and I have added some more details on the page. NowThis News shares a video highlighting her work, she has spoken with NPR about space propulsion, in addition to the recognition by Forbes, Popular Mechanic, and the Organization of Black Aerospace Professionals. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing from comment --> keep based on my opinion that she meets WP:GNG. As I already noted, she does not meet WP:PROF. Her repeated coverage by multiple, independent sources is evidence of WP:BASIC. She appears regularly in the media talking about the lack of diversity in space science, most notably in NowThis News^[1] and in a podcast with scientist from NASA and Georgia Tech.^[2] She has also been on NPR.^[3] These three citations go beyond trivial mentions of her name, though the page includes other examples of less substantial mentions of her work. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree with DaffodilOcean. WP:GNG is probably the relavent criteria, not WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The 30 under 30 is junk and non-RS. It is not an award. All the x of y clickbait profile/muck you see, are all non-RS. They are a form of advertising. Fails WP:NPROF, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 04:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Most of the references in this article don't really establish a passing WP:GNG criteria. Most of them are just interviews with Butler-Craig which is fairly common in science. This would set a bad precedence of any professor or academic who does media interviews (and there are a lot!) having established Notability. I also agree with above, Forbes 30 for 30 is not seen as a credible award or honor in the science domain as an overwhelming majority in this field simply do not apply. Also, not that this is necessarily the case, but this article in its current state feels very autobiographical. --Paulstar57 (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused here. Paulstar57 is a new account with the only edits being to nominate this page for deletion. I don't think you then get to vote on it, or least that is my interpretation of this statement found in the guide to deletion: "If you are the nominator of an article for deletion, your desire to delete it is assumed (unless you specify that you are neutral, and nominating for other reasons). Because of this, you do not get to !vote (that is, for the second time) in your own AfD.". DaffodilOcean (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does not count as two votes, only one, but the nominator is allowed to comment. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry about that, edited my comment to reflect this.--Paulstar57 (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it "feel very autobiographical"? In any case, WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Reading through the material this should be a GNG issue and imho the subject does meet that notability guideline, if basically. So I agree with DaffodilOcean and Kj cheetham. (Subject seems to be a worthy competitor in her field with further achievement forthcoming. Might even see her on a trip to Mars soon.) This one's a keeper. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 22:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if the community agrees that this article genuinely passes GNG, then fine. I just personally thought the benchmark was much higher for GNG than this. If this is what it takes to have notability for science communication then there are hundreds if not thousands of academics that have a similar list (just using the Forbes 30 for 30 honor means that there are 30 of these scientists a year, for over a decade now). I am relatively new to all of this, but with regards to your "further achievement forthcoming" comment, aren't there the rules against crystal predictions of the future. We need to build articles on the reality of the present not on predictions of the future.--Paulstar57 (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I agree this isn't WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Paulstar57: agree with your CRYSTAL, so I've placed it in parens, because it wasn't meant to be a part of my reason to keep this article. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 13:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep 30 under 30 isn't sufficient, but the other coverage just about covers WP:GNG I think. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't know why folks are leaning on the 30 under 30 (which does appear in over 1600 wp articles, so it is worth mentioning). She has been given a NASA research fellowship, was honored by the National Society of Black Engineers (and don't tell that doesn't count because it's only black engineers]], the Organization of Black Aerospace Professionals, Popular Mechanics, et al. All of these honors add up. True, she has only a few publications and not many cites but she's still a student!. You ask me, we might as well have this article here because it's only going to grow. Lamona (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Notification was made about this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. - Beccaynr (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as there is clearly enough overall coverage to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2022 (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.