Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gitanjali Rao (scientist) (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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gitanjali Rao (scientist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Does not meet notability guidelines. Per discussions, TIME and Forbes lists have been consistently rejected as standards for notability. The awards won, although prestigious, do not seem to cross the threshold for a Wikipedia page.

The individual highlighted has no publications, the tone used seems overtly narrative based, the content appears to have been written COI, and there seems to be little encyclopedic value brought by the article other than a litany of relatively noteworthy awards. Further, the classification of the individual as a "scientist" plainly fails the WP:SNG for academics. I do not believe the individual passes off on any particular SNG relating to people. I submit that the GNG is insufficient in this context as the standards espoused in the first deletion section would make achieving a full score on an AP exam, which hundreds of students do every year, warrant a Wikipedia page. Augend (drop a line) 22:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Augend (drop a line) 22:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: moments of temporary celebrity are achieved all the time. In the grand scheme, it is unlikely that the secondary source coverage, surrounding one singular invention, fulfills a general standard of persistent or long-term notability. Augend (drop a line) 22:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~Keep. The previous deletion discussion was just over a month ago and was unanimous for keep. It is not appropriate to re-nominate an article so quickly. Surmountable problems listed in this nomination are fixable per WP:NOTCLEANUP. VQuakr (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think time should be a limiting factor. There was very little serious discussion in the previous nomination discussion and the argument that "simply having momentary news coverage" with regard to GNG is insufficient for notability is not addressed. Nor does the article pass SNG for academics, which seems to be the point argued with the classification of the individual as a "scientist". The previous discussion seems to have been instead an exercise in copy-pasting various (syndicated) links to news articles. Augend (drop a line) 23:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The subject obviously doesn't meet the SNG for academics; that is irrelevant. A six-month period between nominations sticks in my mind but since I can't find it written down, I concede that it is unrealistic to hold you to an unwritten and possibly imaginary rule. The DAB parenthetical being ill-considered isn't a good argument for deletion; again see WP:NOTCLEANUP. Pinging previous participants. @Qx.est, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Hannes Röst, Jaireeodell, Graham Beards, Mujinga, Thilsebatti, and LordVoldemort728: VQuakr (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comment will be neither here nor there, but I will submit that I find it amusing that a student, having won a K-8, albeit national, competition and raised a couple thousand dollars for said project, suddenly meets the notability guidelines when the mayor of their city would not. Augend (drop a line) 00:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Education, Science, and Colorado. Skynxnex (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per unanimous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gitanjali Rao (scientist) last month. I refute that "GNG is insufficient". GNG is the core of WP:AFD CT55555(talk) 06:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment in last afd. GNG is sufficent per WP:N policy, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I contend that this article fails WP:NOTWHOSWHO. It is tough to identify any notability beyond a single invention, a product of a single event. Augend (drop a line) 01:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ample reliable sourcing exists in the article to meet GNG and establish notability. WP:BEFORE does not seem to have been done and the nomination seems more concerned with cleanup and who gets to be called a scientist than policy. This article was kept just one month ago. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 11:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. We've looked at this and there's no reason to think that things have changed in a month. --Jaireeodell (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Discovery Education 3M Young Scientist Challenge is a pretty big nationwide event. And the Flint water crisis was/is a nationally noted crisis . The fact that at age 12 she developied a portable water quality test to help with that crisis, makes her pretty remarkable and notable. — Maile (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a point that seems to have appeared repeatedly. I don't think her age is something that warrants particular gravity. Nowhere in the notability guidelines does it say that age is a determining, or contributing, factor in establishing notability. We would not presume a baby with the ability to speak at three months of age is necessarily warranting of a Wikipedia page, even though they may indeed be precocious for their age. The conflation of "remarkable" and "notable" seems, to me at least, to be a recurring fallacy in "Keep" argumentation. The primary argument I have is that the vast majority of literature on this individual is in the form of news articles. In keeping with WP:NOTNEWS, I find it difficult to believe that this individual is notable for anything other than winning an award for one of her inventions, or indeed will be in the near or foreseeable future. The other content on the article plainly fails the GNG, including being listed on Times and Forbes lists and so forth. Augend (drop a line) 01:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the previous AfD nom. I think it is also crucial to note that Tethys, the potable water quality test she invented, has not made any progress since 2018 from what I can see—pretty much a one-off invention. I haven't found any sources showing the actual product in use during the Flint water crisis. I believe it's one thing to invent something, and it's another thing to invent something that is being used. Because of her grade level (open only to grades 5 through 8), she was able to qualify for the 3M Young Scientist competition where she presented the Tethys prototype. The other invention on the article is called Kindly–the extension shows less than 70 Chrome extension users, and I can't find much information on it outside of UNICEF's website–the original website no longer is available. Kindly is one of the 152 digital public goods that UNICEF has listed on its registry. These projects parallel (not saying that it is) something to that of US high school students undertaking projects on in hopes of gaining admission to a prestigious university–once you're recognized/in for your work, you move on to the next big thing and stop working on what you were doing before. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per WP:DELAFD. "Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." pburka (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep. The previous discussion last month had eight editors participating and all comments besides the nominator's argued for keeping the article. I don't see how that even comes close to very little serious discussion, and thus see no reason to ignore WP:DPAFD, where a reasonable amount of time has clearly not passed. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the age of the subject should absolutely be a factor in gauging NOPAGE. The sourcing on her is 100% award hype (and that includes followup content from the awarding orgs) for apps and inventions that never actually materialized, which is...a really weak basis for an article, and potentially embarrassing to have hanging over her as she enters college. In many (most?) of these cases the child returns to being low-profile in adulthood (see, e.g., this article on a subject with far, far more sustained coverage). JoelleJay (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Call it 100% award hype if you like, but it's sustained:2017 2018 2019 2020 2022 2023 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, TIME lists aren't sufficient for notability. Neither 2022 nor 2023 has anything new of substance - the 2022 link just cites a bunch of old ones (including the 2020 link and the press release from 3M itself) and regurgitates it in other vocabulary - no new information in any form is presented other than a rewrite of old content. The 2023 link appears to be little other than an advertisement for a podcast. There is no unique content there whatsoever. Augend (drop a line) 04:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable doesn't have to mean excellent or top of their game—it just means the subject has been noted in reliable sources (see WP:GNG for the exact wording). I can understand the enthusiasm to delete articles but WP:DELAFD should be followed. The nominator should have fewer than 1⁄3 of the edits on an AfD page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: per all the valid reasons stated above, this already had a recent and unanimous decision made. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only because consensus was reached recently to keep this. If I had noticed the previous discussion, or if this is nominated for deletion in a few months time (the minimum necessary for WP:CCC to kick in), I might well [have] call[ed] for deletion on the basis that we should not have a WP:REFBOMBed article that seems to be sourced only to news. Where are the books from serious publishers that cover her? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the books writing about her I looked at seems be by publishers directed at children, like Workman Publishing Company, Simon Spotlight and Disney. They might be considered to have WP:N-value just the same. I'd say a fare share of WP:s BLP:s are sourced only to news, take Wally Green (table tennis), my last one. I see nothing at GNG that demands books. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTNEWS: While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. Augend (drop a line) 05:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the coverage of Rao routine if you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2023 (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.