- 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. This one is close, but there's just enough to tip it over to the 'keep' side of the Mendoza line. The Bushranger One ping only 07:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Loren C. Ball ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I was unable to find significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The Minor Planet Center is not an "independent, reliable source" in your mind? How bizarre. Should this sad deletion occur, the article should instead be preserved by being moved to User:Urhixidur/List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers. Urhixidur ( talk) 14:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- The Minor Planet Center merely lists his name (assuming I'm looking at the same page you are). It has no biographical information. That's the problem, other than his self-written article (re-published from a local paper by a Nashville astronomy club), nothing can be found out about him. Unless you know of sources that give his biographical details, I don't see how the article holds up as anything but a stub. Tarl N. ( discuss) 02:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - I am unable to find anything which could be defined as significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Therefore, fails to meet WP:GNG. -- Jack Frost ( talk) 08:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC).
- Keep I think anybio or the GNG are the wrong criteria. Certainly I think anyone who has discovered > 100 asteroids deserves a stub. His biographical data is not what makes him notable. I mean, who cares? The notability is in the achievement. This may be a case of not having an appropriate guideline for astronomers. If there is such, please ping me. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 04:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Night fury 08:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Night fury 08:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Night fury 11:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ball, Loren C. “'The Swimmer': A Midsummer's Nightmare.” Studies in Short Fiction 24, no. 4 (1987): 433–436 (very likely by the same person)
- Atlanta, vol. 44, n° 3 (July 2004), page 178 (brief mention)
- Keep as noteworthy; very few amateurs have discovered so many asteroids. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as it fails WP:GNG, WP:PROF and WP:BASIC. Their achievements may be unusual, but notability is not inherited from the asteroids, none of the asteroids are notable anyway (with one possible exception that currently has an article), and Ball's article is merely a directory of asteroids discovered by this person. That's a lot of WP: links, but my point is that doesn't seem to be any non-trivial coverage of this person, just entries in lists of asteroids. Therefore they should not have an article. Modest Genius talk 17:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Keep mostly based on the number of discoveries. I've added another reference to a newspaper interview with him, but there doesn't seem to be that many of these. There is, however, enough to write a (short) article about him. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 20:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep There are now two independent substantial references writing about him/her, so WP:GNG is met. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Are you counting Atlanta, vol. 44, n° 3 (July 2004), page 178 as a "substantial reference"? It's a passing mention in one sentence. Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)I just noticed an additional reference added to the article. Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep without any doubt. The sheer number of discoveries as well as cited articles, "An Amateur Story", "Stars falling over Alabama", in addition to subject's descriptive write-up [under "External links"] within the website of Barnard-Seyfert Astronomical Society are more than sufficient reasons for his notability and retention in Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. This one is close, but there's just enough to tip it over to the 'keep' side of the Mendoza line. The Bushranger One ping only 07:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Loren C. Ball ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I was unable to find significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The Minor Planet Center is not an "independent, reliable source" in your mind? How bizarre. Should this sad deletion occur, the article should instead be preserved by being moved to User:Urhixidur/List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers. Urhixidur ( talk) 14:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- The Minor Planet Center merely lists his name (assuming I'm looking at the same page you are). It has no biographical information. That's the problem, other than his self-written article (re-published from a local paper by a Nashville astronomy club), nothing can be found out about him. Unless you know of sources that give his biographical details, I don't see how the article holds up as anything but a stub. Tarl N. ( discuss) 02:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - I am unable to find anything which could be defined as significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Therefore, fails to meet WP:GNG. -- Jack Frost ( talk) 08:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC).
- Keep I think anybio or the GNG are the wrong criteria. Certainly I think anyone who has discovered > 100 asteroids deserves a stub. His biographical data is not what makes him notable. I mean, who cares? The notability is in the achievement. This may be a case of not having an appropriate guideline for astronomers. If there is such, please ping me. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 04:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Night fury 08:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Night fury 08:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Night fury 11:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ball, Loren C. “'The Swimmer': A Midsummer's Nightmare.” Studies in Short Fiction 24, no. 4 (1987): 433–436 (very likely by the same person)
- Atlanta, vol. 44, n° 3 (July 2004), page 178 (brief mention)
- Keep as noteworthy; very few amateurs have discovered so many asteroids. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as it fails WP:GNG, WP:PROF and WP:BASIC. Their achievements may be unusual, but notability is not inherited from the asteroids, none of the asteroids are notable anyway (with one possible exception that currently has an article), and Ball's article is merely a directory of asteroids discovered by this person. That's a lot of WP: links, but my point is that doesn't seem to be any non-trivial coverage of this person, just entries in lists of asteroids. Therefore they should not have an article. Modest Genius talk 17:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Keep mostly based on the number of discoveries. I've added another reference to a newspaper interview with him, but there doesn't seem to be that many of these. There is, however, enough to write a (short) article about him. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 20:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep There are now two independent substantial references writing about him/her, so WP:GNG is met. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Are you counting Atlanta, vol. 44, n° 3 (July 2004), page 178 as a "substantial reference"? It's a passing mention in one sentence. Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)I just noticed an additional reference added to the article. Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep without any doubt. The sheer number of discoveries as well as cited articles, "An Amateur Story", "Stars falling over Alabama", in addition to subject's descriptive write-up [under "External links"] within the website of Barnard-Seyfert Astronomical Society are more than sufficient reasons for his notability and retention in Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- 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.