Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenka Kotková


 * 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   Keep, consensus is that she is notable enough but will probably be renominated if more sources are not found in the future. Davewild (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Lenka Kotková

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable, no sources, even trivial ones, provided. —Zorro CX 13:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC) + 16:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Are you sure? The article looks good to me. Limetolime  Talk to me • look what I did! 14:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - the article is sourced, and notability is evident (she's discovered over 200 celestial bodies). -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Where do you see any source please? That article is marked for almost one year for its lack. —Zorro CX 16:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources would be in the section marked References! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 08:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't see any notability in discovering stones. (Asteroids are defined as stones with diameters more than 10 metres.) There is more than 1,000,000 asteroids. Is discovering 200 of them notable? —Zorro CX 16:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that an asteroid was named for her in 1997 (link) should be an indication that she's probably notable. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp  | talk to me  17:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems to be notable to me. I don't think we have a specific policy for astronomer notability but I'd say discovering 200 asteroids qualifies. Some more sources would help her verifiability though. ~ mazca talk 17:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think no article should be based on original research only. —Zorro CX 07:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not original research. There are sources that have been cited. --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 08:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which ones? There is only one which reads as a fancruft: "Named in honor of Lenka Sarounová (b. 1973), an assiduous observer at the Ondrejov Observatory. She has a broad range of interests, from astronomy and meteorology to music. She loves gaining new experiences through traveling and meeting people. Her photometric and astrometric observations of minor planets became an integral part of the discoverers' research project on NEOs." It can be added her eyes colour and her favourite puppie name. And other facts (except her hobbies) are not sourced. —Zorro CX 20:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Gsearch and google scholar search shows notability (more hits under her maiden name); she received an award for her work on variable stars.--Fabrictramp | talk to me  17:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a lot more publications under her maiden name, but most of these are in a bulletin on variable stars, which certainly isn't a prominent journal, and she is usually not the primary author. This still doesn't clearly establish notability to me. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, no secondary sources that discuss her as a subject. She has not written any books, has not been appointed to any important positions and the award mentioned is of unclear importance. I cannot tell from reading this article if her work is any more or less important than that of other astronomers. I will reconsider this assessment if sources that establish notability are added to the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – That is the problem with academics – there is just not that much information out there on them. However, I was able to establish some Notability for Ms. Kotková by going to Google Scholar.  As we can see here,  Ms. Kotková has been involved with at least three scholarly works.  With at least one of her publications being cited by this source   which was in turn cited by 12 additional sources which included some of the highest regarded and respected Astrophysical journals.  I say that is enough to establish Notability within her field.  ShoesssS Talk 17:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Publishing is what academics do. If she really has only 3 publications, that were cited only once, then she is not notable at all. (The fact that that one citing article itself was cited 12 times is irrelevant, but even if we count all those, 13 citations is something a good grad student might have halfway through their PhD). I am not too familiar with this field: GoogleScholar may be less appropriate for it. I would be surprised, in fact, if she got a position at an observatory with only 3 publications to her name. I think we need some input from someone who knows this field better. --Crusio (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you applied the same publication criteria to me I'd be notable (see my userpage). But I'm certainly not that important! Tim Vickers (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well Tim, when you are ready for your bio to be added here at Wikipedia, let me know. Will be happy to co-author the piece :-). 18:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll get back to you after my first Nature paper. Unfortunately my dad is still ahead of me by that criteria - Tim Vickers (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Vickers. It's unfortunate that every little hockey player that played two minutes in the NHL gets himself a whole Wikipedia article and this person has to go through an afd, but I guess there's no choice in the matter. There's no clear-cut line that can be drawn for academics, and we must analyze each academic on a case by case basis. Vickers has clearly established that there's no evidence that she's an important figure of her area of study thus not meeting the WP:PROF notability standard. --'' brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep pending source verification. For whatever it's worth, astronomy is a particularly squishy subject when it comes to notability because there are so many amateurs in the field with significant amounts of publication on the record. If the sources are verifiable, a soupçon of WP:IAR is called for. Haikupoet (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which sources do you mean? There are none. —Zorro CX 07:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep apparently she is essentially a technical worker, not a scientist, but as having had such a role in so many asteroid discoveries, she is notable. DGG (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still sceptical about this. How many asteroids might an average astronomer working on asteroids discover? I don't have any experience of this field, so I can't judge whether this number is small, large, or average. This problem would be solved by a secondary source that discusses Lenka Kotková as somebody who has discovered an exceptional number of asteroids. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As I mentioned above, the fact that an asteroid was named for her (link) should be an indication that she's probably notable.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 20:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepHowever, needs more sources, and an image of her.Remilo (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.