Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Turnbull (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Tito xd (?!?) 01:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Margaret Turnbull
This article originally underwent an AfD debate at Articles for deletion/Margaret Turnbull, which resulted in its deletion. An undelete-and-rerun was requested at Deletion review, principally on grounds that the first debate was very brief. That request was approved, so it's here for a more thorough consideration than before. -Splash talk 17:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Note, that this has expanded from its original posting and likely wouldn't be nom'ed as it stands. Well-sourced, notablity established. To forestall the previous complaint "she's only a post-doc," the criticism only makes sense if her educational attainment were the basis for inclusion. Quite clearly that is not the case here. Either you feel creating the HabCat and subsequent shortlist and, generally, being the last word on "HabStars" is notable or you don't. Given general wiki standards I'd say "yes" is an easy call. Marskell 17:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Much of the information in this article ought to go into HabCat, the star catalogue that Margaret is compiling. I still find a postdoctoral fellow not notable, and it's Jill Tarter who is the PI for Project Phoenix, that her catalogue is a subproject of. Pilatus 18:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "I still find a postdoctoral fellow not notable"--this isn't the basis for inclusion. Would "I still find a non-PH.d not notable" be a valid criterion if Jim Wales was nominated? Would "I think people who enter but drop out of seminaries" make sense for Tom Cruise? No, obviously. Marskell 22:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * How about "I find the idea of whittling down the Hipparcos survey by metallicity, spectral class etcetera to have a manageable list of star systems that could possibly harbor extraterrestrial life a boring project that does not establish a track record of notable research yet." To put "extraterrestrial life" into perspective, please note that it is often invoked by NASA to sell their research to the general public. The latest example: the Mars rovers. Planetary geology is genuinely exciting on its own, yet we see NASA put on the hype of "life on Mars" to make the project more palatable to the taxpayer or make the taxpayer pressure his Senator who might choose to spend his budget on pork projects instead. I'll get off the soapbox now, thanks for listening. Pilatus 00:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So you agree that the postdoctoral fellow bit is not in-itself a delete criterion? Because it isn't, very obviously. The article does not reference NASA, extraterrestrial life, the Mars Rovers or any other attempt to "sell" exo-bio searches. We can agree to disagree on the rest of it. Whittling down 118 000 stars does not establish a track record of notable research? Well, I disagree and if you follow the links in the article so, apparently, do others. Marskell 00:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The interview cited in the article, which Tony mentions as well, plays heavily on extraterrestrial life. The purpose of the HabCat, that Margaret has compiled, is to find extraterrestrial life. The criteria for planetary habitability are well estabished; the article Wikipedia has a section around what stars one might expect planets that support higher lifeforms. The rest are database searches. Yes, it really is that prosaic. Pilatus 01:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * While admitting NASA is self-serving in who it touts, so what if the purpose of the HabCat is to find extraterrestrial life? She still gets first mention on the Sol Station habitability page and your basic Space daily, David Darling references etc. Also, having spent days on the page, I can tell you the criteria for planetary habitability are far from well-established. Marskell 08:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Margaret has a reprint on her homepage. This isn't sufficiently groundbreaking, neither is appearing in a few interviews to warrant an article on herself. Pilatus 11:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and then redirect to HabCat as suggested on the VfU. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 18:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to HabCat. I do not see a good reason to delete before recreating as a redirect, although I would not object to it. I would like to stress that this is not a vote to keep as is. Regards enceph  alon  20:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This eminently notable scholar.--Nicodemus75 21:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I said on VFU: "She's a relatively junior academic, but not every junior academic has collaborated with the director of the SETI Institute to copublish a catalog of possibly habitable stars. The NASA website has a nice little section written by a journalist at Astrobiology Magazine who interviewed Turnbull and Tarter."  If not kept, a redirect would be very much second best. --Tony Sidaway Talk  23:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry Tony, unexciting research, see my comment above. We keep articles on genuine achievement, not because someone has collaborated with someone with a track record. Pilatus 00:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * WTF do you qualify as exciting? Feminism in Milton? The anatomy of herbivorous dinosaurs? The HabCat is as "exciting" as any research and this is not a grad student collecting info for the boss. The target selection paper references Turnbull first. Marskell 00:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Exciting" == "mold-breaking", as a first attempt as a definition. Margaret did the work, that's why she is first author, Jill as last author secured the funding. Pilatus 01:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If "mold-breaking" were a necessary inclusion criterion we could scrap half the wiki. Marskell 08:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess what I'm trying to say is that having a few papers published isn't sufficient to warrant an article on oneself, publishing papers being the purpose of your everyday academic and such. The question is: is Margaret sufficiently important to have an entry for herself. Pilatus 11:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You think no, I think yes and this whole world just keeps on turning. Let's just be glad we had this time...er, excuse me. I've been commenting to much on this damn entry ;). Marskell 12:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to HabCat. Gateman1997 23:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable enough within her field. 23skidoo 01:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to HabCat. - brenneman (t) (c)  03:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and or redirect. Ambi 07:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Marskell. --rob 10:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep appears to be notable and verifiable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Ejrrjs | What? 01:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This doesn't add much notable info beyond the contributions to HabCat, but as per above I don't think you can say she's non-notable. -- SCZenz 02:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep She is well known in astronomical circles, and her ideas were presented on Spacedaily-one of the leading portals on space and science.--Molobo 14:56, 26 October 2005 (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.