Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Viscardi (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Viscardi[edit]

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

Delete Yes, I am nominating this article again. Subject of this article DOES NOT meet notability criteria! His accomplishments are not of unique import, as thousands of students every year win the exact same or similar scholarships and prizes, and thousands of students also attend and graduate from Harvard. Mere intelligence is not grounds for a Wikipedia article.

Basic criteria for biographies are as follows:

The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

I do not see how this person meets these criteria -- it is worth noting that USA Today chooses a person of the week EVERY SINGLE WEEK, Siemens chooses grand prize winners EVERY YEAR (and furthermore, it is not a Nobel, a Pulitzer, an Oscar, or any such award -- I do not find any other Siemens Competition winners with their own Wikipedia articles), and Harvard University accepts approximately 1600 new freshman every year, as well. What basically qualifies as a personal resume, a presentation written for the Siemens Competition, and mention in the Harvard Gazette for winning a fellowship also do not qualify as acceptable sources. AND all of the articles above refer to winners of the Siemens prize, not to the subject alone.

Another point I want to make is that having an Erdős number of 3 is irrelevant when the one with the number has virtually no other notable accomplishments. Most of the others I've checked on the list have far more achievements.Cami Solomon (talk) 06:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there are a lot of undergraduate students at Harvard. But on the other hand, only a handfull of them has proved a mathematical conjecture and published the results. Some of those who did have an article on Wikipedia, see Daniel Kane or Reid W. Barton. Therefore keep. --bender235 (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the comparison you are making, but it's not entirely relevant to the discussion at hand. I might disagree that either of those fellows are worthy of their own Wikipedia pages as well, but that's neither here nor there because I didn't nominate them. I nominated this one, and it stands alone. It needs to be judged based on whether or not it meets Wikipedia's standards, not based on whether or not other people can get away with similarly trite articles. And while not many students may have proved a mathematical conjecture, many of them are quite accomplished and have been lauded, awarded, published, etc. These are still not significant contributions. Delete.98.220.139.127 (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Cami Solomon (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion they are. Just like a College All-American in football or basketball is notable, while other college football and basketball players might not. --bender235 (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Previous AFD by same nominator closed 2 weeks ago with niminator being the only person to !vote for deletion. Ample sourcing was shown and there is no reason to believe consensus has changed in 2 weeks. Edward321 (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With coverage in two national and one significant local news sources, I think he meets notability. Am I incorrect in my understanding that the basic criteria for Basic criteria is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."? It seems to me he meets that level, and possible also notability for academicians. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment without voting one way or the other: If this is the second AfD nomination, shouldn't the first one be referenced here? Also, question for the nominator: do you have additional grounds for nominating it this time, compared to your previous nomination? Or is it that you simply refuse to accept the "keep" consensus of the previous nomination, because you don't agree with it? --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was two years ago, not two weeks ago. I nominated it again because I noticed that the list of sources had changed (I sometimes check on articles to which I've contributed). I did not delete the previous AfD nomination -- someone else did. Also, I don't know to what national and local news sources you are referring, but the articles mentioned in the previous AfD were not about Michael Viscardi; they were about the winners of the Siemens Prize, which receives the same amount of coverage every year (and they aren't even in the main article anymore). (EDIT: I see now that the sources have been modified -- I don't remember what was there 2 years ago, but these are probably some of the same, though I wouldn't call them "ample". These sources were never quite sufficient; this is like saying that every winner of a prestigious scholarship whose name has appeared in a news source should have his or her own page. Having graduated from Harvard myself, I can't help but note that Viscardi's accomplishments are relatively commonplace in that environment, and that is why I find the article superfluous. I think it helps set a negative precedent of clutter and minutiae for Wikipedia.) Furthermore, a college All-American is the best in his position in the entire country as judged by the NCAA. I think that's a big difference. Cami Solomon (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2010 (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.