Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Tsou

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. Mailer Diablo 10:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Tsou

The article is about a non-notable person, and is likely vanity (the article's subject is the creator's cousin) Stack 00:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Detecting racism on the part of Stack.
• Keep Looking at the returns from Google and Google Scholar, I think he would be notable in the astronomy community. The article needs a cleanup and some references though. Kevin 01:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep NASA seems to think he's notable. Tyrenius 02:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Would be great if the Stardust mission link weren't red. Ooo, I'll go fix that. Shenme 02:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While this person is somewhat notable right now, Peter Tsou will likely never become "part of the enduring historical record of the field of astronomy" (Wikipedia:Notability (people)). However, I do not feel strongly about this. I strongly agree that if the article is going to remain it requires serious work to bring it up to standards. Stack 04:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like a reasonable article, and the business about being a cousin

appears to be a joke. Gene Ward Smith 04:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep I'm in a giving mood, Keep per not paper. Teke 04:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone fleshes this article out quite a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
• Weak keep. He is notable enough but the article needs a good cleaning and expansion.--John Lakonias 06:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Per the comments of Stack. I could go either way, but definitely needs cleanup.--Eva ^db 09:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup and discourage editing by involved parties. Just zis Guy you know? 13:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable. The article isn't great but it's of (barely) better than stub quality, so that's not a reason to delete. --Tango 14:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. His work has been featured in Discover, National Geographic, New York Times, and on NPR. Also, has been an author on two papers in Science. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, asserts notability. --Terence Ong 15:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Scientists are hideously underrepresented here, and this man is clearly a published expert who is recognized by NASA. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 16:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to be notable according to NASA, and as been involved in some NASA projects, again as people have been saying Wikipedia is not paper DannyM 19:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Another example of why Notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for keeping or deleting articles. As it has been said before, this person is an expert and is obviously notable within the NASA community. DanielZimmerman 22:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I disagree with you on notability for the same reasons. Notability and context are subjective, which provide consensus. Different users have different opinions; seeing how they stack up are what decide these votes. Votes themselves are irrelevant, it's the conversation that decides the outcome. Teke 05:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Response - How exactly does a discussion provide consensus without taking into consideration the votes? I guess that is one of the wikipedia issues that doesn't make much sense to me. We are not an experamentation in democracy but if enough people say "keep" we "keep" and if enough people say "delete" we "delete". So the votes do matter. The only difference is that people can change their votes if they are open to hearing other peoples point of view. I am open to hearing points of view on the issue of notability but as of yet have not seen a way we can enforce such a guideline or policy consistantly to all articles. DanielZimmerman 18:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Like most statistics, I think the overall curve is nice and bell-shaped for most actions on Wikipedia. It's the nitty gritty examination of details that get ugly. Many votes are drive-by Keeps and Deletes, and often times the voter doesn't take the time to research. But if the nomination is good enough, I know I don't feel a need to explain myself in detail. I'm not an admin, so I cannot speak for their actions, but I would hope that closing admins read the votes instead of tallying. Um...I lost my point. I hope y'all find it. Teke 02:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per the comments above. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, he appears to be a reasonably important NASA scientist. Joyous | Talk 23:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — Parts of text are copied verbatim from the NASA site. I suspect it's bordering on a copyvio. Otherwise I'd favor keeping. — RJH 20:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep this please it is about a important scientist Yuckfoo 23:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Primary Investigators of NASA science instruments are far more notable in their field than the average professor. I can see WP:PROF not having field by field special notability criteria, but if there were to be such things, a space mission instrument PI would surely qualify. Georgewilliamherbert 21:07, 14 May 2006 (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.