Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Viscardi (3rd 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 no consensus. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Viscardi[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:PROF Markgall12 (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been nominated twice before. However, I believe it is rather clear-cut that the subject does not meet the criteria of WP:PROF. It is explicitly stated in the guideline that "Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1."

Everything in the first paragraph is related to high-school and college level prizes. The "2010 Hoopes Prize" is non-noteworthy, as the prize is given to dozens of students every year, and often several in math alone. The results proved to win these prizes simply have not had "significant impact in their scholarly discipline". They appeared in a fairly low-ranked journal and have been cited all of 9 times in the last 7 years. Markgall12 (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AfD formatting Fixed. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep News sources said he is notable, not low impact scholarly journals, and you joined Wikipedia just to nominate him for deletion, so his article is not too obscure, it seems. MicroPaLeo (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles say that he won prizes as a high schooler/undergrad, which are explicitly excluded per WP:PROF. Which of the 9 criteria in the notability standards do you feel are met?

I have many more edits from another account, but am not using it for this. Not that it's relevant. --Markgall12 (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same ones that the Seattle Times, USA Today, and ABC News think are met.

I thought you could only have one Wikipedia account, can I create a second one for deletion discussions, also, is that correct? How can anyone tell if you voted twice in the same discussion, then? MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources note that he won various prizes for a high schooler. It is extremely explicit that these awards do not meet notability criteria. --Markgall12 (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't know the account rules. Maybe I will be banned, so I'll refrain from voting. But it is pretty clear from the standards that this article is non-notable. --Markgall12 (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should withdraw the nomination. I asked at the Teahouse and read a link they provided, and it says, "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project." It seems you were not allowed to start the discussion. Why is the deletion so important to you that you created a sock puppet account to get rid of the article, you might ask. There are many marginally notable people on Wikipedia. In this case, three major news sources decided he was notable enough to write about, so why should we second guess them? That is what Wikipedia's notability policies are really about, let outside sources decide notability rather than Wikipedia editors. MicroPaLeo (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MicroPaLeo:, looking at your own editing record, I have the definite impression that this is not your first account either... --Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Certainly fails WP:PROF (student awards do not satisfy those guidelines), and as yet has a low h-index. However, there is considerable news coverage of the prize, which probably satisfies WP:GNG. -- 120.23.174.141 (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not everybody who has been a darling of some media ephemera at one point is necessarily notable. Notability requires something of encyclopedic interest. Student competitions are explicitly ruled out from consideration at WP:PROF. That the subject continues to fail WP:PROF is evidence that the subject's presumed notability was indeed transient. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I should add that BLP1E seems spot on in this case. Media coverage of scientific achievement is a notoriously poor indicator of actual lasting scientific importance or value, and are often just feel-good pieces. This isn't to minimize the impressiveness of winning student awards, but there is a reason after all that they are excluded at WP:PROF. USA Today and the vast media blogogarchy is free to crystal ball all it wants to, but we shouldn't indulge in that ourselves: particularly not when the crystal ball already turned out to be wrong. That's is a clear BLP1E to me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator has been blocked for violating WP:ILLEGIT. It is not permissible to create an alternate account to participate in a deletion discussion. Since Sławomir Biały has apparently entered a legitimate deletion vote, I have left the discussion open. If he withdraws it, however, I will delete this AFD under WP:CSD#G5 and remove the tag from the article.—Kww(talk) 22:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect and merge to Siemens Competition, per WP:BLP1E. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC).
Delete. I !voted keep in the first (2008) AfD but I don't think time has been kind to this one...we have no evidence of the continuing interest in this story needed to save it from being a one-time news event. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete despite the strangeness of this nomination (why create an alternative account just for this?) I agree with Sławomir Biały and David Eppstein, student competitions, or at least these ones, don't make a subject notable and there's nothing since.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The prize won by the 16 year old garnered national news coverage (USA Today, etc.), emphasizing age and educational background as being homeschooled. I supposed a case could be made for BLP-1E, but this strikes me as a major, notable, and encyclopedia-worthy achievement. GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per (this is going to be hilarious) WP:Pornbio. If they can meet Wikipedia eligibility requirements by winning industry awards, then I fail to see why mathematicians can't under the same criteria. Also, this. Pax 04:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense, and the way you keep using porn as a reference point in these unrelated AFDs is equally baffling. Sergecross73 msg me 03:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hafspajen (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Nom is an SPA account, only edited one day to file this AfD, and has been indef blocked (Abusing multiple accounts: WP:ILLEGIT violation: use of alternate account to participate in deletion discussion). Something is wrong there, and I think this AfD is the Fruit of the poisonous tree. Note that the last two AfD discussions were closed as Keep. Seems to fail PROF, but I believe it passes GNG, if not overwhelmingly, based on the article and all the sources on balance, including national press coverage in more than one source. - Becksguy (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2015 (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.