Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Po-Shen Loh

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. Michig (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Po-Shen Loh[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. A two line stub. No clear notability established. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 09:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning to keep per WP:PROF#C7 for his role in the IMO. News appearances: CBS [1], Washington Post [2][3], NPR [4], Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [5], TribLive [6]. Interviews: FiveThirtyEight [7], Huffington Post [8], a New York Times online department [9]. XOR'easter (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: Could you add those references to the article, perhaps along with a few comments about what they say? Michael Hardy (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. Of the sources currently in the article [10] only [1] and [5] (TribLive and WashPost) have any nontrivial coverage about Loh himself rather than about how the team performed or what it takes to do well in the IMO. But two may be (barely) enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Disclosure: I am the creator of this article. I believe, as XOR'easter says, the non-trivial coverage of Loh in major news sources (WP, NPR) and not just the IMO team or CMU warrant him an article by WP:PROF#C7. Wqwt (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Second relist. Consensus needed to determine if sources included are enough to satisfy Notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources listed by XOR'easter. —Gpc62 (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2018 (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.