Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Chael (2nd nomination)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Chael

[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)

This article was AfDed in 2019, and deleted per WP:BIO1E. Nothing suggests that Chael has gained sufficient notability in the intervening 3 years for the page to warrant recreation yet. PianoDan (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PianoDan (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. PianoDan (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. Some high cites on GS, but with vast author lists it is impossible to see the individual contribution. First AfD got it right. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Far WP:TOOSOON. Subject was included in the middle of a long list of coauthors of some well-cited papers, but I don't think that contributes much to notability, and I don't see much else (apart from one passing mention in Astronomy). Consider salting, as this is the second go around, and the notability case is not close at this time. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article makes his status clear He is highly decorated within the Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, being the only member to win both the Outstanding PhD Thesis and Early Career Awards. In other words, just beginning. Early career awards if nothing follows later, are evidence of non-notability. As Xxanthippi says, for this field & others with similar patterns of authorship, citations are of little help,. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He does have a couple of >100-citation papers on which he was first author ("Interferometric imaging directly with closure phases and closure amplitudes", 109 and "High-resolution linear polarimetric imaging for the event horizon telescope", 147) but as a 2019 PhD and current postdoc I would need to see much stronger evidence than that of significant independent scholarly impact to overcome WP:TOOSOON. The repeated re-creation (and wording of the article) suggests a problematic level of promotionalism which does not incline me to be lenient. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as media coverage goes, the situation has not significantly changed since the last go-around. He's been quoted a little since then about EHT work, for example here, but that's typical. I concur with the concerns raised above regarding his citation profile: being in the middle of a long list of coauthors is not a sign of individual noteworthiness, and there doesn't yet seem enough beyond that. The promotional tone may be a consequence of a novice editor whose mind has been poisoned by keynote-speaker bio blurbs and so thinks that biographies should sound like that. XOR'easter (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A junior postdoc who fails WP:PROF. They've made a promising start to their research career but that isn't enough to meet our notability criteria. Alerting @Will (Wiki Ed): to this discussion, as they seem to have overseen the creation of this article by a novice editor as part of a WMF education programme. Modest Genius ^talk 18:35, 24 January 2022 (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.