Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Moore

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 redirect to SN 2008ha. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Moore[edit]

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

Ms. Moore's achievement is impressive, but she is a person notable for one event only (WP:BLP1E). It is not uncommon for talented amateur astronomers to discover new supernovae. The supernova she co-discovered, SN 2008ha, already has its own article, and it identifies her as one of the co-discoverers. I propose deleting her biography and amending the supernova article to mention her distinction as the then-youngest person to discover a supernova. Astro4686 (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Astro4686 (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SN 2008ha with the relevant record-of-youngest-discovery information merged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to SN 2008ha. There's coverage, but it's all either local news or about SN 2008ha. I think some of this article could probably be merged there, but I'm not sure exactly what. As such, a redirection would be alright if that's the consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the question should be raised. My understanding is that all of the criteria for deletion under (WP:BLP1E) needs to be satisfied. I am not yet convinced that this is the case.

The person is notable for 3 events:

Discovery of SN2008ha
Discovery of SN2009he
Young astronomer of the year, 2009, by iOptron Corporation (the award could potentially be considered as part of the SN2008ha discovery event)

1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

[stleary] I am not sure that this is satisfied, given that two discoveries were made. However, the SN2009he event appears to be sparsely covered.

2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

[stleary] This is likely, given lack of new events since 2009.

3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.

[stleary] This seems unlikely to be the case, but please provide justification if you think it is.

"It is not uncommon for talented amateur astronomers to discover new supernovae".

[stleary] I am not certain that this is the case. Can you please provide some backup for this statement?

Full disclosure:

I wrote the original entry, so I have some interest.
This is my first attempt at contributing to a talk page, please bear with me.

-- stleary

Hi stleary, thank you for your feedback. I think that the major issue is whether it is generally notable for amateurs to discover supernovae. As an observational astronomer, I would say that it is common knowledge within our field that amateur astronomers discover supernovae on a fairly regular basis. For example, I glanced at the list of supernovae discovered in the year 2015 (available at http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/lists/RecentSupernovae.html), and even though I didn't do an exhaustive count, I spotted a minimum of 24 separate supernovae discovered by amateurs in that year alone (8 by Koichi Itagaki, 7 by Stuart Parker, 3 by Tim Puckett, 3 by Greg Bock, 2 by L.A.G. Monard, and 1 by Patrick Wiggins). Some Google-searching verifies that each of them is an amateur astronomer, and since I didn't take the time to check every name on the list, I'm sure that I missed a number of other amateurs who discovered supernovae. Moreover, Robert Evans and Puckett's group are just two examples of amateurs amassing an impressive number of supernova discoveries over the years. So while discovering a supernova is a wonderful achievement for an amateur astronomer, I don't think that an individual discovery would necessarily constitute a significant event as required by the notability policy. Also, I agree with you that SN 2009he hasn't received significant attention and that the iOptron award is part of the SN 2008ha event. Regarding the award, it doesn't seem to satisfy WP:notability (awards) because it seems to be mentioned only in the context of Ms. Moore's discovery. I can't find any significant coverage of the award itself. Astro4686 (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Astro4686 (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep because it is already a C-class article. If it were a stub, then the decision to redirect or delete would be more clear; both Astro4686 and stlearly make valid arguments. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:00, 12 January 2016 (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.