Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter R. Cooney, Jr.

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 no consensus. I have read the arguments, and I do not share the nominator's assertion that the "boil down to nothing more than "keep, because he 'discovered' asteroids/stars." The keep arguments have presented a reasonable case that Cooney's work has been reported in numerous media outlets, which relates directly to notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter R. Cooney, Jr.[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP of an astronomer. WIkidemon is mass-reverting PROD tags from unsourced BLPs, without even bothering to try to source them. Unit Anode 00:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep This guy is discovering asteroids and planets, that is so notable. Off2riorob (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD nominations coupled with accusations of bad faith don't bode too well for the nominator. Please strike that bit here, and at all of these other nominations. Grsz¹¹ 02:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you stop posting this to multiple AFDs? There was no "accusation of bad faith" in any way. I simply pointed out the fact that Wikidemon removed the PROD without adding sources. Unit Anode 02:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey kettle. How many AfD's did you post that in? Good lord. Grsz¹¹ 02:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted it in exactly the number for which it is a bare fact. Meanwhile, your claim that it's an "accusation of bad faith" is just categorically not true. Yet you've posted it in multiple AFDs. Unit Anode 12:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it stands, the brief article does not satisfy WP:PROFESSOR. Is it unusual to do the work he is paid to do? Edison (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any particular reason to believe that he's paid to be an astronomer? I'm pretty sure that a lot of these asteroid-finder sub-stubs we've been seeing in prods and afds are amateurs (and that the observatories they're supposedly associated with are their home telescopes); is there some evidence that he's an exception? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the best source I can find about the guy (that isn't behind a pay wall). Basically, he's a chemical engineer and amateur astronomer who made a bunch of asteroid discoveries before the computers took over and did it automatically. There are some references in gscholar, but these mainly seem to be data from tracking some of the asteroids. The reason I am saying delete is that the only coverage is in a local paper, and his exploits as an astronomer do not appear to have brought much recognition from people in the field. Quantpole (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Quantpole's link and plus other coverage such as this [1] and citations in Minor Planet Bulletin [2], a journal for the type of discoveries that Cooney makes. Being an amateur astronomer does not disqualify one from making major astronomical discoveries, as per the early work of Maria Mitchell and Clyde Tombaugh. Warrah (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the papers he has written/co-written with and they really didn't seem to have been cited much at all. The only real coverage I see for him is the local paper, which doesn't indicate to me that he has made much of an impact in the world of astronomy. Quantpole (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sourcing. I would not be inclined to classify the discoverer of one asteroid as notable; this is a good deal more. Warrah has found the necessary citations. Given that he's an amateur, the strange argument: "is it notable to do the work he's paid to do?" does not matter, but on that principle, we would remove all the articles on professional athletes and musicians. . DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I buy a strong telescope, set it up in my back yard, and discover an asteroid, I would be notable enough to have an article about me? That doesn't make any sense at all as an argument for keeping this article. And I can not make heads nor tails of your disjointed argument about professional athletes and musicians. They're notable because they are professionals. This guy is not notable because he's an amateur. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths people will go to in an attempt to save a non-notable article. Unit Anode 05:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you get ample news coverage for your discovery, you would. The newspapers determine its notable enough to talk about. Dream Focus 22:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ample news coverage? Hardly. A bit about the telescope he used in a local newspaper, where he is talked about. There are hundreds of thousands of people mentioned in local newspapers, but that doesn't make someone notable. As far as I can tell his achievements haven't been recognised by anyone in astronomical society. Yes, he has written or co-written a few articles, but as far as I can tell they are mostly measurements of asteroid data. His work does not appear to have been cited by others in the field. Here is a piece in my local paper - does that make the couple notable enough for an article? Quantpole (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many significant discoveries. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Google news search has dozens of results when you shorten his name. [3] And he isn't paid to do this, it just a hobby, as the Baton Rouge newspaper says, "Walter Cooney, a chemical engineer by day and stargazer by night, spotted the first of the three free-floating space rocks on Sept. 24." Dream Focus 22:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are maybe 10 news sources that mention him, when you subtract baseball and narrow it down to 1980-2009. None of them go beyond a trivial mention. I'd encourage the closing administrator to keep these things in mind when making this close. This is not a majority vote, after all. Unit Anode 22:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep An amateur who's discovered 50 stars, 60 asteroids and 33 planets is obviously notable. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Frequently mentioned on The Minor Planet Bulletin and other astronomical pubs.—RJH (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - anyone with access to a telescope can find asteroids, and many will given their number, so that does not make him notable. The only reference is to a short local news story about the telescope he uses, i.e. not primarily or mostly about him.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JohnBlackburne. JBsupreme (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin: Many, if not most, of the "keeps" boil down to nothing more than "keep, because he 'discovered' asteroids/stars." This is not valid, and I would think that all such recommendations should simply be discarded as this is not a majority vote. Unit Anode 13:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per RJH. He's mentioned in sufficient sources to be notable, in my book; the deletion arguments simply don't hold up. Rebecca (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JohnBlackburn. Googling the subject, it does seem to be the case that any amateur can discover asteroids. It seems like a nice thing to do, but doesn't require the sort of skill or talent that would make someone notable. Here is an example of a group of undergrads fining 1,300 of the things [4]. I bet they don't have WP articles. --FormerIP (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2010 (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.