Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Lin

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 the subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC but does meet WP:GNG. MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Lin

Henry Lin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable astronomy undergraduate based on the WP:ACADEMIC criteria. His award is distinctly different than the type WP:PROF#C2 would count as notable. As yet WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrojimmy (talk • contribs) 01:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as other winners of the Intel award, which do not mention other achievements have pages, e.g., co-winner Eesha_Khare and Ionuț_Budișteanu
• Keep as has had significant coverage in reliable sources such as the Boston Globe article, smithsonian, time magazine (all in the article) and therefore passes WP:GNG which overrides WP:ACADEMIC. Atlantic306 (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure the Time or NYT article argues in the direction you suggest. Quote from Knutson and pentultimate paragraph suggest that the idea of the paper should be credited to Loeb. Time article focuses on Loeb and only mentions Lin in passing. NYT article briefly mentions this work while discussing plans for other telescopes, this work is not the focus of that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrojimmy (talk • contribs) 02:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Off to a good start, but does not yet meet WP:Prof; WP:Too soon. Not enough in-depth independent sources for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete WP:TOOSOON. Does not have the coverage for GNG, and does not have the publications/influential work for WP:PROF. Might have, fairly soon; can be recreated then. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing particular at all for solid independent notability, sourced....but not notable. SwisterTwister talk 18:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even if article does not meet WP:PROF criteria, it probably meets the WP:GNG criteria. There appears to be significant reliable coverage not included in the article: e.g., a second article from the Boston Globe that prominently features lin Boston Globe. Gizmodo has also features him twice Gizmodo 1 Gizmodo 2. As for Astrojimmy's concern an arXiv search lists him as 1st author for 6 publications including all the ones that have gotten media attention, suggesting that the academia gods give him the credit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.224.4 (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed with SwisterTwister, not notable. A few papers, but not enough to stand out and very few non-self-citations in a very highly cited field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.204.61 (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not notable by either GNG or PROF standards. The standard for notability from the "academia gods" is much higher than a few papers. Poster above with the Harvard IP address should check out WP:Prof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.204.61 (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.61.188 (talk) [reply]

• • Struck second delete vote from same IP Atlantic306 (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, was trying to comment and add to discussion since it was relisted! Didn't realize that would count as a second vote :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.203.227 (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the nominator and IP 67.134.204.61 are both single purpose accounts, all of their edits except one have been on this AFD and the prod of the article.There is enough significant coverage such as the Boston Globe and Time and NYT for WP:GNG to be passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ACADEMIC at the moment. Blythwood (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. He doesn't pass WP:PROF, and the 30-under-30 coverage of him specifically is very weak, but we have nontrivial stories about multiple pieces of research he did (alien pollution and panspermia, to name two) that have made a splash in the popular media. I think that may be enough to pass WP:GNG and to be safe from WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if they win awards that are known and the sources say so then what else do you need? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The subject may not meet WP:ACADEMIC, but that is irrelevant because the subject does meet WP:BASIC at this time. Some sources are below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

• ABC News
• Red River Radio
• Smithsonian
• Science News (published by Science News)
• New Scientist
• Boston Globe
• Boston Globe
• Gizmodo
• International Business Times
• News.com.au

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.