Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tabetha S. Boyajian: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:08, 20 October 2015

Tabetha S. Boyajian

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

Not a notable subject, WP:BLP1E. See KIC 8462852 for further context. Geogene (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Geogene (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Geogene (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An eponymous star and colloquial search term suffices for notability. kencf0618 (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The star isn't officially named after her, that's just what some astronomers sometimes call it around the office. Further, even if it were an official name, it wouldn't qualify as notability (one of the guidelines says that having a planet named after you doesn't make you notable, but I can't seem to find that one right now.) This person is only mentioned in the context of some papers they co-authored and briefly mentioned in news sources that talk about this particular star; that isn't grounds for making an article about them. See WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Geogene (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead author. And it seems silly to leave the eponymous aspect hanging. kencf0618 (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead authorship isn't enough, per WP:NACADEMIC. Geogene (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of that I am well aware, but as a WP:Inclusionist I prefer to wait on further developments rather than having others reinvent the wheel (à la Gamergate and Deep Dream). Both had been deleted, back in the day; both have become substantial articles since. kencf0618 (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The object is certainly very peculiar, and even assuming it has an entirely natural (ie, non-alien) explanation, it is likely to remain notable enough to make the name (eg, Jocelyn Bell, for pulsars) notable. So I would say wait a while and see what develops. It is notable at the moment. Wwheaton (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 :::Lead authorship isn't enough, per WP:NACADEMIC. [[User:Geogene|Geogene]] ([[User talk:Geogene|talk]]) 23:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 :::: Of that I am well aware, but as a WP:Inclusionist I prefer to wait on further developments rather than having others reinvent the wheel (à la [[Gamergate]] and [[Deep Dream]]). Both had been deleted, back in the day; both have become substantial articles since. [[User:Kencf0618|kencf0618]] ([[User talk:Kencf0618|talk]]) 00:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
+'''Keep''':The object is certainly very peculiar, and even assuming it has an entirely natural (ie, non-alien) explanation, it is likely to remain notable enough to make the name (eg, [[Jocelyn Bell]], for pulsars) notable.  So I would say wait a while and see what develops.  It is notable at the moment.  [[User:Wwheaton|Wwheaton]] ([[User talk:Wwheaton|talk]]) 01:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)