Actions

User talk

Nomination withdrawn::Gap9551

::concepts

October::articles    Article::style    About::thanks    Record::added    Would::template    Sources::august

Nomination withdrawn FYI, I've already withdrawn that AfD nomination. Geogene (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, although jokes about aliens aside, in your withdrawal statement you still claim she isn't notable and that everyone voting 'Keep' is not following the guidelines. But you never explained why she doesn't meet the significant coverage as described in WP:GNG. Anyway, I appreciate the discussion. Gap9551 (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that. I see the references to the subject as being trivial mentions, ie, "X wrote a paper" or "we informally named the star after X" and not significant coverage of X. For example, this [1] is one sentence, providing little more information than that Boyajian exists. The secondary sources don't have any biographical content, so it's all being harvested from primary sources, and that's usually considered bad in BLPs. No matter how many thousands of sources there are talking about the star, even if they all mention the astronomer, if none of them are interested in their biography, we shouldn't be either. Geogene (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The CNN article you give mentioned her name seven times, including two quotes and her employment, in addition to the 'Tabby's star' name. She doesn't need to be the main topic of the coverage. And we disagree about 'significant coverage' and the interpretation of the GNG, and how much biographical information is needed to write an article (guidelines are vague about that). By the way, in general, when people disagree it doesn't automatically mean that someone is wrong. Gap9551 (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I saw that, but being interviewed in the news, and being the news, are not equivalent. In this case I see it as the former and not the latter. I'm not sure how to argue that further, but I'll grant that it might be opinion. To answer your question at project astronomy, the reason I didn't nominate the other article is that I became aware of it after it was already clear that this one would be keep or no consensus. They're too similar for me to nominate the other right after it. Geogene (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes I believe that's the core of the matter. She is not the main topic of the coverage, so it's about how significant the discovery is, and her contribution to it. I would think that the notability of the other astronomer is harder to defend, but still not a clear-cut case either way. Gap9551 (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Gap9551 sections
Intro  Jimmy Connors  Revisions ATP World Tour Records  [[User_talk:Gap9551?section=_WP:LAYOUT_| WP:LAYOUT ]]   re: Katja Hartmann    The Big Move    FINA   You sure keep up those tedious tennis chores   My edits    Use of German characters in English language articles    Tom Jager gold medals   Stats pages   Important Discussion   Delete Nomination 2004 Estoril Open   Needing Wiki contribution assistance!    Djokovic    Roger Federer    Getting Wikimedians to the Olympic Games    Fed-Nadal    Swimmer navboxes    Liu Xiang    Thank you for your good work    ATP Rankings charts    Finswimming category tidy up    FINA junior world championships    Guidelines    Are you checking Persondata against Wikidata before deletion?    KIC 8462852 & Science Fiction portal   Nomination withdrawn  New user   Welcoming    A cup of tea for you!   Category:British Empire and Commonwealth Games by host country  New user 2   FZ6 Weight removed??   

Nomination withdrawn
PREVIOUS: KIC 8462852 & Science Fiction portal NEXT: New user
<<>>