Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Veilleux

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. Uh, no. Option given to salt if recreated seicer | talk | contribs 04:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Veilleux

Recreated after speedy deletion, this incarnation mentions a prize so is possibly not a speedy candidate. Still no indication that WP:BIO is met. Ros0709 (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No clear assertion of notability and no independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quickly. Plenty of reason above. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This web page calls the CRM-SSC prize one "of the eight major national prizes in the mathematical sciences" in Canada. That may be enough to pass WP:PROF #2, I'm not sure, despite it being for a relatively junior researcher. It's more than a student award, anyway. But in some other AfD's it's been questioned whether the Aisenstadt prize, another of those eight and also for a more junior researcher, is enough to satisfy the criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not even sure that this article is not a hoax. MathSciNet does not list any papers authored by the subject, and similarly there is nothing in GoogleScholar[1]. We can debate the level of prestige of CRMS-SSC prize some other time, but the claim to have won that prize does not check out: the official webpage[2] with the list of the prize's recepients does not contain the subject's name. Delete as failing both WP:V and WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, delete. That was the only reason I was holding out on giving an opinion. I suppose there's an outside chance Veilleux received the prize before the 1999 date of the first listed recipient, but there's nothing in Google either. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2008 (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.