The point of my research is to reflect on the portfolio ideas that I have and then push myself to criticize them. Any idea that can’t stand up to scrutiny wasn’t a good idea in the first place. The power of investing is being able to get behind those ideas you have with conviction you’ve earned through doing the work. “Take one simple idea, and take it seriously.” (Charlie Munger)

WP:SNOW

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Bouman

she does pass the notability criteria on her own

This might be a good place for a speedy decision to be made,

wide variety of coverage in a variety of media

article should be trimmed a bit, but deletion is unjustified

Some undue weight, but that doesn't means she isn't notable

Jealous bros should not cry each time a woman is part of an achievement.

the media did give her way too much unasked for credit for a discovery made by a large international team

Recommend editing article to reflect disproportionate amount of press coverage received and reiterate that she is one of the many researchers behind the photograph of the black hole

Meets criteria under WP:NACADEMIC due to *extensive* press coverage (including multiple secondary sources) over the past 48 hours.

it was held recently in the AfD discussion about Saikat Chakrabarti that coverage of other aspects of the person's like (which our article on her details a fair bit of) satisfied those concerns even if the coverage was in news stories otherwise about the "1E"

the subject meets WP:GNG

There is an important nuance that you're missing (along with others)—WP:SUSTAINED press coverage is what establishes notability, not a sudden burst of coverage. WP:TOOSOON also applies.

it isn't indicative of is significance, but that's a different thing

press coverage is exactly indicative of (and more or less synonymous with) notability, as defined by GNG

not necessary indicative of notability if it is not WP:SUSTAINED

it will be more due to press/social media celebrity

the sources like the NYT note that the press coverage she's received is of outsize significance to her actual role in the project.

WP:1E is pretty clear;

I don't know that "her story needs to be told" is a justification for a WP article.

the disproportionate level of coverage to her share of the project should be clarified.

Bouman has received substantial focused coverage from many major news outlets

it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia to have the AfD tag on top

WP:SNOW

is predicated on non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, and there is plenty of that here

WP:BIO

Her notability doesn't hinge on whether she was the principal person behind the the images

This article is much better than many others about non-notable academics!

this is good indication that the Bouman article is notable

Prominent coverage is primarily due to a facebook photo that went viral.

per WP:1E

the press should not have covered her work is original research

the subject meets criterion 7 under NACADEMIC due to the press coverage

adjust her article to reflect the analysis—in reputable secondary sources—about how the media singled her out as the "hero".

Her story *should* be on Wikipedia

Bouman has probably been covered in the news in every country in the world

She is obviously notable enough to have a profile on here

And the Washington Post story shifts gears from her role in the black hole image to online trolling focused around her,

There's now tons of in-depth coverage specifically about her

WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC.

There is no evidence that she is a "key component"

Easily notable

list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions

list of Women-related deletion discussions.

list of Science-related deletion discussions.

We cover what reliable sources cover.

Something like that would almost be worth an article itself.

I don't see the policy basis for keeping this page

doesn't satisfy WP:NACADEMIC

Where do the sources say that she is tenured?

her tenured position at CalTech was announced before the media frenzy this week

I don't support deletion of the article, but the importance of the mediatic coverage and her implication in the M*87 black hole should be explicit as “member of a collaboration of 200 researchers”

Don't you think that this position is a consequence of this mediatic coverage?

She's been featured in almost all coverage

There were at least 200 people with comparable roles and dozens of people with much more notable roles in this event.

WP:1E,

These are guidelines, not policy, and based on the amount of publicity she's receiving, I see no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have a well-sourced article on her.

she isn't actually credited with any notable accomplishments herself.

only in the context of WP:1E

there are many reliable sources providing significant coverage of her personally.

Bouman's not right for Wikipedia because she "is certainly not notable as a scientist",

Any relevant material can be mentioned there

of WP:1E

Someone who isn't even an assistant professor is certainly not notable as a scientist.

Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited.

The Event Horizon Telescope project is notable in itself, and has its own article, but anyone who are in some way (remotely) associated with it are not inherently notable.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Bouman • en.wikipedia.org

actor network theor

Instructional Design Strategies for Intensive Online Courses: An Objectivist-Constructivist Blended Approach

Distance Education Trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration