Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sands Fish

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. Going with the deletes based on the opinions of experienced editors. If someone wants this drafted, I'm happy to do it. But, so far I'm not being convinced to note this as a "draftify" close. Missvain (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sands Fish

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Userfy. I agree that he isn't notable: there are too few citations for an WP:NSCHOLAR pass, and the press coverage is too insubstantial for GNG purposes. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. But since this is part of a Wiki Ed class project, it seems inappropriate to just throw it in the trash. Per WP:USERFY#YES, userfication can be used for content that is "inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia" but not otherwise objectionable. The class project can be graded in userspace, and if Fish ever becomes notable, we'll at least have a start for the article. This seems like a more compassionate solution than simply deleting the article. See WP:DBTN. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Extraordinary Writ, I would have draftified it, but it had already been sent to draft, and then returned to mainspace, so the only alternative was to bring it to AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. If this is closed as userfy, I hope the closer indicates if there's consensus that the article doesn't belong in mainspace. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is there any indication of WP:NARTIST? (As participants here know, this would generally require multiple reviews of multiple works or similar.) I agree that there's no indication of WP:NPROF or GNG notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Russ Woodroofe, not that I could find. Other than the claim that he is an artist, I couldn't find anything which came close to meeting any of the criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst I'm not wholly opposed to draftifying, I'm not convinced based on the evidence so far that there will be enough substance to establish notability any time soon, and I don't see why this should sit in drafts indefinitely waiting for Mr Fish to one day 'maybe possibly' become notable. (I for one also don't see why student projects should be assessed for notability etc. more leniently than other articles, sympathetic as I otherwise am to student projects, in principle.) As it stands, fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftifty. No sign whatsoever of WP:NPROF or GNG, and no evidence of WP:NARTIST. This points towards delete. The best argument for draftifying is that searching for the name of the subject is difficult, so it is plausible that we've missed some reviews (and should give the article originator time to find them). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe there are enough sources to make the notability case now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmeliaMN (talk • contribs) 18:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability. Wikipedia is not a sandbox for students. --hroest 00:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Flagging myself here as the individual in question (of course not editing the page myself) and adding some clarifications here that may help consensus. Indeed, my name makes it difficult in some cases to identify further resources, as well as a multi-disciplinary "designer/researcher/artist focused on designing the future of human life and culture in space" identity that doesn't always appear to cleanly match some categorization schemes. I understand and agree with the "not a sandbox for students" comment, though I am not a student (former student at the MIT Media Lab) but my career started quite some time ago, and my most recent time as a student was my graduate (Master's) degree at MIT (2 years, completed when I was 41 years old after an existing career), followed since then by teaching at Northeastern ( documented here, as it appears Northeastern doesn't persist the class page after the year taught: https://www.coursicle.com/neu/courses/ARTH/1100/ ), and working as a researcher at the MIT Space Exploration Initiative (easy to confuse for my time as a student in the same organization years earlier), where annually (and for the past three years) help teach the Zero-G class ( e.g. https://zero-gravity.pubpub.org/space-exploration-lenses-2020 ), and in the autumn of 2021 I will be teaching at Parsons / New School in NYC. This teaching career is in addition to creating & deploying a number of experiments, the most notable of which is already reference (I'm the inventor of the Telemetron, the first electronic musical instrument designed to be performed in the weightlessness of space, which I (personally) believe is deserving of its own page, given it is the first of its kind) ref. http://telemetron.space and the following press: VICE/Motherboard: https://www.vice.com/en/article/594m95/the-telemetron-is-a-post-earth-musical-instrument-designed-for-zero-gravity // BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/technology-44811897 // SyFy: https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/space-jams-will-soon-be-a-thing-because-this-is-the-first-instrument-designed-for-zero-g // Digital Trends: https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/mit-telemetron-instrument/ // https://www.aneddoticamagazine.com/telemetron-musical-instrument-in-zero-gravity/ , exhibited twice at Ars Electronica in Linz: https://ars.electronica.art/outofthebox/en/space-exploration/ and an earlier 2019 exhibit here: https://ars.electronica.art/outofthebox/files/2019/08/postcityartwork.pdf and here (as well as my workshop at the same festival: https://ars.electronica.art/keplersgardens/en/interplanetary-time/ ), and exhibited at Dubai Design Week https://www.cnn.com/style/article/global-grad-show-dubai-design-week-2018/index.html as well as Zenolith, a novel device for life in space, which is a new project launched and flown this year. More on that here: https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/zenolith/overview/ ) My work related to these projects can be seen here: https://www.media.mit.edu/people/sands/projects/ as well as my own page http://sands.fish // http://sandsfish.com (where you can find additional exhibited works). Academic articles can be found here: https://www.nime.org/proceedings/2018/nime2018_paper0066.pdf // https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/60878/summary/ // https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/54481/summary/ // and soon to be published accepted paper on design principles for future space stations at the ICES 2021 international conference https://www.ices.space/ . Happy to answer any additional questions or provide further references. Thanks all for the work you do here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandsfish (talk • contribs) 18:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC) — Sandsfish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Appending to my above comment: Reference for my Research Affiliate status at Harvard's metaLAB https://metalabharvard.github.io/people/sands and designer/illustrator of the forthcoming book on space exploration: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0262046377/ and former fellowship at Harvard's Berkman-Klein Center: https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/sfish . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandsfish (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sandsfish:, you are allowed only one "keep" opinion per AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe Guidelines state, “’significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded’[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person’s life. ‘Notable’ in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary.” Also, “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]” Subject seems to satisfy these criteria. And more people is better than fewer; it makes for a richer document and data set in the long run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunation (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC) — Lunation (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. No evidence of academic notability. A brief burst of media hype for a supposed new musical instrument is not really enough for notability for the instrument (if it were I'd suggest a redirect instead of delete) and definitely not for Fish either, and besides the minor real-name kerfuffle that's all we have here. The self-promotion on display is also problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David_Eppstein no self promotion here (see the beginning of my statement where I flag myself as the individual in question in order to make this clear so there's no ambiguity). Didn't create the page, and didn't request that it be created. Someone else decide it was worth creating, and it seemed a little silly to not provide relevant information. It is certainly to the Wikipedians here to make the decision. Just providing what information is already out there. Sandsfish (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Extraordinary Writ. Dr. Universe (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2021 (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.