Deletion of Peter Jalowiczor

Comment: 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 , , and  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E||WP:BLP1E||WP:PERSISTENCE)

Comment: or '''redirect to Lick–Carnegie Exoplanet Survey''' as Astro4686 suggests below) - We have  (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  (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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:1EVENT)

Comment: 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 . 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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I don't believe this falls under  or . 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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:1E||WP:FUTURE)