Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possum Observatory

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 delete. If someone wishes to use some of this content to write an article on Drummond, please feel free to contact me - however this article is mainly about the observatory, which consensus appears to hold as non-notable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possum Observatory

Fails notability to the subject. Prod was removed by a blocked anonymous IP. Very few Google hits and orphan. Magioladitis (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Non-notable vanity article. LeilaniLad (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Per LeilaniLad, appears to be a vanity article which in no way asserts notability. MvjsTalking 00:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mentioned on MSNBC, with similiar mentions relating to this discovery on ZDNet, iTWire amongst others. Published in Southern Stars. Listed at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center For Astrophysics. Work appears in Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, All Sky Automated Survey. Astronomer has confirmed three comet discoveries according to the Royal Astronomical Society of New Zealand. Appears article creator made stubs for many New Zealand observatories. XLerate (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those are good arguments for having an article on John Drummond, not on his observatory. Such an article could mention the observatory of course. dramatic (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - have a look at the website, it's just a setup in his backyard. Very nice but doesn't qualify for an article. This site shows some of the astronomy that I am doing at my personal observatory - Possum Observatory - in New Zealand. . Note the word personal. - SimonLyall (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal, backyard, have little direct bearing on notablity, could even help it - consider Richard Pearse and Burt Munro for example. A purpose-built rotating shed could be unique to backyards of this country, together with news mentions helping comet discoveries, online published work, IAU code, warrants keeping the article in my opinion. XLerate (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from various magazines I've read such setups are common (as in half a dozen vendors advertising them every month in Sky and Telescope). Perhaps the man himself is notable but that doesn't mean the observatory is. The articles for Richard Pearse and Burt Munro are for the people, not their shed. - SimonLyall (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rewrite as part of an article on Drummond. The fact that published astronomical results are sourced from the setup indicates notability. If consensus deems it doesn't warrant a standalone article, there is no reason to delete the information (which is properly sourced). --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though borderline. Many amateur observatories are doing scientifically valuable work nowadays, and a good-quality 16" telescope with electronic imaging is capable of contributing useful data. Much depends on a systematic observing program, how the data are published and archived, etc. The extreme southeast ___location is an asset. Wwheaton (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and in my opinion not at all borderline. The amateur astronomer involved may notable, for discovery of Comet Lovejoy -- amateurs in natural sciences can do notable work. The name they choose to give to the place they work in is almost always not, unless it gets significant presscoverage independent of them, which i think would be close to impossible. DGG (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons given by XLerate. Let's given some time to expand the article with the references noted, and possibly revisit the deletion at a later time. --mikeu ^talk 01:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move content to an article on Drummond. I can't see that this particular shed is documented as notable. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to John Drummond (astronomer), which surprisingly does not exist, and expand. This will make more sense than to have a stub article about observatory. Possum Observatory will continue to exist as a redirect. Ruslik (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move per above. A 16" scope isn't particularly notable; I could probably fit one in the back of a pickup.—RJH (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move - to Terry Lovejoy whom used the observatory to discover the C/2007 E2 (Lovejoy) comet, and the closest actual link to any form of Notability. A redirect should remain here though. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The above remark is incorrect as Lovejoy did not use this observatory. Spacepotato (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is actually the case, then I would have to correct myself to Delete, as there would be no claim to notability for this particular observatory then. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 21:15, 21 October 2008 (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.