Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Jalowiczor

Peter Jalowiczor

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

This individual was very briefly in the news for having been credited with the discovery of four exoplanets, but I don't believe this confers the necessary degree of notability. While the article appears well-sourced, many of the references are of questionable reliability, or totally unacceptable for use as citations (Amazon, Daily Mail). Only a handful of sources discuss the individual with any depth, and they're all substantially identical, focusing on the same misleading theme that it's somehow remarkable to have made these sorts of discoveries without the ownership of a telescope. Citizen scientists, particularly amateur astronomers, frequently make comparable discoveries from crowdsourced data, and are often listed as authors in the resulting papers as a courtesy. I've searched for additional coverage of his work, either in astronomy or otherwise, and have to conclude that he unfortunately fails to meet the GNG. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - well, we have WP:BLP1E (policy), which has three criteria that must be met for an article to be deleted, and while this article meets the first two, I think it probably fails the third one. We also have WP:1EVENT (guideline), which recommends having an article about the notable event rather than the person. Neither one strongly points to deletion here. My feeling is that these amateur astronomer discoveries will become more common, so this topic should probably be folded into an overall article about such discoveries made by amateur astronomers. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've added multiple references to supplement the Amazon citation which are more reliable. I'd also point out that those two are the only references you have problems with out of what is now 19 sources, and all of them corroborate each other, so I don't think references are a problem anymore. I'm also in the process of adding a section on another piece of research he did - please take a look and let me know if these changes help. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your efforts and don't wish to denigrate your hard work, I think it's concerning in its own right that all of the sources corroborate each other so strongly – this means Jalowiczor is only known for one minor event, and there isn't much to say about him. Anachronist above suggests the subject escapes WP:BLP1E by virtue of his "one event" being substantial and well documented, and that's possible, but as it stands I disagree. Of your 19 references, very few appear to be reliable sources that discuss the subject or his contributions to astronomy. Inspiration for Life certainly wouldn't be considered a credible academic source; this RfC recently determined the Daily Mail to be unsuited for use as a source; I'm not sure about Sify News, but it doesn't inspire much confidence. References 7, 8, and 9 don't discuss the subject, but only mention him as an author of local history books about his community. Refs 12 and 13 are blogs, and certainly constitute WP:REFBOMBing. Very few of these sources – if any – rise to the level of credibility and depth that would satisfy the "well documented" criterion established in BLP1E, and to the best of my researching abilities, this story was never even picked up by any major, reputable news outlets. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that the sources "corroborate each other so strongly" and also link to WP:REFBOMB, I might point out that it's only REFBOMB if all of them say the exact same thing and are stacked up beyond a max (ish) of three at the end of sentences. That's not what's happening - the citations are distributed throughout the article because some add different details, though the main point - that he discovered four exoplanets - is indeed the same. However, this is true for just about any subject - articles about Benjamin Franklin will mention he was one of the Founding Fathers, that he did experiments with electricity, or what-have-you, but provide different details about those things (of course, Peter Jalowiczor clearly did less than Benjamin Franklin, but hopefully my point makes sense). In response to the general quality of the sources, I will work on improving those and finding better sources - I saw a CNN clip on YouTube that I haven't watched yet (so major news sources have reported on it). Finally, many researchers (professors/academics) are not reported on in mass media but are still notable as per Wikipedia standards. Jalowiczor has done research beyond just the four exoplanets, which I'm adding a section about (mentioned in my last response). To conclude, I'll do some more work on the sources and finish that section, and hopefully at that stage you'll agree we can keep the article. Thank you for your response! --Nerd1a4i (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Juliancolton: I have improved the sources and removed the ones you've objected too. I've also improved the article with respect to WP:Notability (academics) and added another section (the section on the delta effect) to show that his work isn't just related to exoplanets. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lick–Carnegie Exoplanet Survey. Mr. Jalowiczor's achievements are laudable, but I am not satisfied that he has received the sort of in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources necessary to make him notable per WP:GNG. Moreover, it is not uncommon for amateur astronomers to discover astronomical objects. For example, the exotic white-dwarf pulsar AR Scorpii was initially discovered by an amateur astronomer who would later be a co-author on the discovery paper in Nature; in addition, you can see at List of minor planet discoverers that many of the people listed are amateurs. In fact, amateurs are frequently included as co-authors in major articles (as Mr. Jalowiczor has been), and on occasion, one will even be lead author of a paper in a major journal. The current article attempts to establish Mr. Jalowiczor's notability (in part) by the fact that he has been a co-author twice. Co-authorship is a ubiquitous practice in astronomy research, and being a co-author by itself does not confer notability -- especially on just two papers spaced by 18 years. Before finding him to be notable, I would need to see that reliable, secondary sources have discussed in appropriate detail how he has made some unique and significant contribution to amateur astronomy that distinguishes him from other amateurs who have engaged in research and/or received transient media coverage. Put another way, we want to ensure that he is truly notable, not that he has been in the news a few times. Redirecting the article will at least preserve the history, should Mr. Jalowiczor become notable at a future time. On a side note, I commend both Juliancolton and Nerd1a4i for their dispassionate and respectful discourse; I don't see it often in AfD discussions. Best, Astro4686 (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Astro4686:, thank you for your comments. In response to WP:GNG I believe that Mr. Jalowiczor does in fact meet those requirements. Piece by piece: significant coverage ("addresses the topic directly and in detail") is true of all but one of my sources (#5) - they all explain exactly what Jalowiczor did (some address the book he has written, others address his discovery of four exoplanets, others discuss his work with the delta effect, etc). In reliable sources ("editorial integrity") that are independent of the subject - I've cleaned up the sources since the AfD started, and I believe that all of my sources are third-party, with editorial oversight. For example, Amazon and Daily Mail are no longer listed as sources. I would point out that there were enough sources that I was able to remove the poorer sources while still having plenty. Finally, I understand this only makes it presumed to be notable, but it might also be worth looking at WP:Academics - the first item which leads to notability is "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" generally shown by being an author "of highly cited academic work". Examining Google Scholar, his two papers have collectively had 38 citations. He had influences upon a paper with 136 citations. I believe this constitutes, at least to some extent, notability under WP:Academics. This, added to his amateur status and his other work (he also wrote a book, for example, and was in the news for this) I believe combines to admitting a stand-alone article for him. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem is that although these news sources provide some facts about Mr. Jalowiczor's work, they are not reliable in terms of establishing the significance and notability of what he did. If Mr. Jalowiczor has made a unique and significant contribution to astronomy, I want to hear it from experts, not journalists who probably lack the requisite expertise. The news articles establish what he did; expert opinions tell us whether it is notable. As for the BLP1E arguments, I don't think that it matters that a handful of sources repeat the same facts about Mr. Jalowiczor's work. Were it otherwise, almost any receipient of a one-time media blitz would be immune from BLP1E. (Consider, for example, that the biography for David Dao, the United passenger who was forcibly removed from his flight, was deleted on BLP1E grounds, even though there was saturation coverage from the media regarding his role in the event.) As for the academic notability route, being a co-author on two papers over 18 years, while a nice achievement for an amateur, isn't notable in comparison to academics who crank out multiple first-author papers each year for many years. I will continue to monitor the AfD discussion, but for now, I remain convinced that a redirect is the best option. Best, Astro4686 (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete and/or redirect per the above. While I do not deny that there is a fair amount of coverage, the time of that coverage spans no more than one month. This means that he falls under WP:1E, WP:BLP1E, and WP:PERSISTENCE as a relatively notable event but really just a guy's 15 minutes of fame. His books are relatively minor, with the mentions being local "community bulletin" type releases. To echo Astro4686, I appreciate the level of respect in the discourse happening, and I never like to see hard work be deleted, but at the moment I just don't see Jalowiczor as a notable individual. Primefac (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I don't believe this falls under WP:BLP1E or WP:1E. To start with the former, point number one, "if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" is somewhat true (though sources like papers and what not talk about his achievements other than just the discovery of exoplanets). Point number two, "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" is probably true, but he is still doing research. At the risk of bringing WP:Future down upon my head though, we'll just say point two is true. Point three, "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented", however, is not met. Articles about 2 of the 4 discovered exoplanets exist (i.e., notable by Wikipedia policy; I don't know about the other two) and an article about the group that did the discovery with Jalowiczor exists (i.e., also notable by wiki policy) so the event is significant. Further, the individual's role is clearly substantial and well-documented. So Jalowiczor does not meet BLP1E - it only meets half of it.

As for WP:1E: I think it can be generally agreed the most relevant part is the section where it discusses "when an individual plays a major role in a [somewhat] minor event". Here I would argue that the case is that of "a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved" - the general public is, I think, more aware of Peter Jalowiczor than astronomical object HD 177830 c. Here, I would also argue that the article for the event related to Peter Jalowiczor is not necessarily the Lick-Carnegie Planet Survey because that is an on-going project that has a scope well beyond Peter Jalowiczor. In this case, we must then compare the Jalowiczor article to the astronomical object article. Whether or not the astronomical object is notable by WP:Notability (astronomical objects) is a different issue that has already been determined, but we must consider it as the event, in which case Peter Jalowiczor is more famous than the astronomical object. Some may consider this a nitpicky argument, which it kind of is, but this is where I must introduce my last point.

WP:Ignore all rules states that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." A couple of you, and others who weren't directly involved in this AfD, have stated that they were kind of on the fence with deletion here, and that they could go either way. In other words, the article is, I hope you would agree, not complete junk, and is decently well sourced, and since most delete votes here are weak deletes or redirects and seem like it might kind of sort of fit into a policy for deletion - well, I'd just suggest we keep it. Thanks for reading through this longer response! --Nerd1a4i (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]