Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shouryya Ray

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. The consensus seems to be to delete on the basis of BLP1E. Personally, I think that section needs to be used very carefully--not to delete articles about people of borderline importance , but to delete when the underlying importance of the one event is really trivial. On the basis of the evidence discussed below, the consensus is that this qualifies are the appropriate degree of tribiality DGG ( talk ) 08:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouryya Ray

Shouryya Ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Delete Scientifically not notable per WP:PROF; in particular, no reputable source for impact of high school project exists. Argument from press coverage invalid as per WP:1E. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. If this guy really solved a problem that has baffled physicist and mathematicians for 300 years, then obviously he is notable. There were ample sources in the article supporting this (before Thore Husfeldt removed them). The exact formulation of the problems remains unclear for the moment, but this can be tagged appropriately in the article and left open until this becomes clear. If the importance of his solution/results would turn out to be overstated, then an afd could be considered again. But for now, there is no reason to doubt. regards, Voorlandt (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

…if he really did solve such a problem, sure. But we cannot establish that. Several WP editors have tried for 24h. We failed. As soon as there is a reputable source for the magnitude of his contribution: he should have an article, and he’s certain to get one. So far, no such source exist. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact, he did not solve an old problem, journalists got it wrong. Solution is not new and can even be obtained by mathematica in an instant. 78.30.154.210 (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes it seems the case now at least for one of the problems, [1] for which his solution appears in a 1860 book on ballistics. Voorlandt (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. --Hydao (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. There were many reports in the German press about this little genius. --Akolyth (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC+1)

… all of which repeat the same unsubstantiated claim that he did something that his contribution has baffled mathematicians and physicists for 350 years, all easily tracked back to hyperbolic press releases. We need one of the “baffled mathematicians or physicists” to speak up in the media, not references to badly researched newspaper articles. I’ve made a serious effort to understand the result, and then establish its notability. I failed. To argue for notability based on scientific achievement as per WP:PROF, should we not at least expect a nonzero number of published papers? We don’t have them. If his contribution is really notable (which it may be), he’ll easily get his paper, and a Fields medal. Then he becomes notable for WP standards. Not before. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep will be notable if it's true, and probably notable for the hoax if it's false. EdwardLane (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not a hoax. Just a case of misunderstanding, false claim of novelty, and unwitting journalists blowing this out of any proportion - hardly a notable case, journalist sensationalism happens all the time. 78.30.154.210 (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

… that’s not how we roll here. We come “after”, not “before”. It his project really is scientifically significant, he’s sure to get a page real soon. No reason to pre-empt that. If it’s not significant (i.e., just something you get a really nice 2nd place in Jugend forscht for), then the young man will have his reputation ruined. “Hoax” is not on the table. The issues are “scientifically notable” or “artificially inflated human-interest story”. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. It's quite common for the press to seize upon reports of some unknown (especially a whiz kid) solving a problem which has baffled technicians or scientists for decades or even centuries. This makes for good copy (not to mention newspaper and magazine sales, and web ad imprints). However, quite often the claims turn out to be spurious. Sometimes the inflated claims themselves become notable enough (such as with Shiva Ayyadurai) for the subject to get its own article, others (e.g., Vinay Deolalikar) are worth only a passing mention in an existing article, and still others aren't worth mentioning here at all. I think that at this point it's premature for us to be able to make any verifiable assertion of notability for Shouryya Ray. If his claims turn out to be true, then the article can be recreated. If his claims turn out to be notoriously false, then the article can be recreated for that reason too. But if his claims turn out to be false and also utterly forgotten after this brief flurry of press coverage, then there's no reason for an article to exist here. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

To expand on that: I have no doubts that the claims put forth in his project are correct. It’s not a hoax, or false/spurious in way Vinay Deolalikar was. Instead, my guess is that the result is entirely unremarkable, from a professional scientist’s point of view. An exercise in differential equations, maybe. Great for a high school student to be on that level, but not notable. He got 2nd prize in Jugend forscht, a very nice competition for high school students. (Make no mistake: it’s great and a laudable competition and all that.) But it does not a Wikipedia article make; not even the 1st prize holders become notable. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Looking back at my post, I probably didn't make this clear, but by "if his claims turn out to be true", I wasn't referring just to the claim of correctness of his proof, but to the claim that it is scientifically significant. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. This may become notable at some stage in the future when more precise details emerge, but there is no real (verifiable) evidence yet to demonstrate that something notable has actually been achieved yet. Madmath789 (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete When the problems have been identified and verified by experts, then articles on the author and problems can be written. Until then it is just a article about a boy who came second in a competition which doesn't sound worthy of an encyclopaedia entry. If this competition is in some way noteworthy then it should have an article and it then may warrant including this person in that article. But not notable enough for a separate article yet. ChrisUK (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

ChrisUK, you mention a possible, constructive merge that I actually thought about. If the Jugend forscht article included a list of past winners (and, in fact, runners-up) then we could include him on that list and redirect the article to there. But so far, WP has not found the competition sufficiently notable to mention even a single winner, so I abandoned the idea. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I don't think we can say, at this time, that this person has solved a problem which has baffled mathematicians for 350 years. This event has not received any coverage outside the popular press, none of the articles have quoted any mathematicians or physicists commenting on the discovery, the statement of the problem itself is unclear and this apparently stunning achievement wasn't even enough to win the competition. Scholarly sources are preferred to news organisations for this kind of topic. I suspect what has happened here is that the significance of the discovery has been exaggerated to make a good human interest story. If that is the case (or until we have evidence it's not the case) we shouldn't be covering it. Hut 8.5 12:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to future re-creation. If his work is subjected to peer review (and by peer, I mean professional mathematicians, not fellow high school students) and accepted by the mathematical community as the solution to the 300-year-old problem, that would justify having an article about him. But the article doesn't even currently claim that the subject solved a 300-year-old problem, and attempted solutions along these lines don't always pan out under further scrutiny. The fact that the Jugend forscht judges found his solution only worthy of a second place award suggests that they didn't find it as impressive as the newspapers are making it out to be. Maybe the newspapers are right and the Jugend forscht judges are wrong, but there will be plenty of time later to determine that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is derived from the availability of sources; there are many, many sources available for this person. Unless there is a policy-based reason to discard these sources, the article should be kept. JulesH (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well (a) newspaper articles etc are not considered good sources for scientific subjects, and (b) the subject is only known for one event. Hut 8.5 17:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• keep - For a better description of what he did, Google "Analytische Losung von swei ungelosten fundamentalen". Keep due to media coverage, not due to his as yet unverified accomplishments. If it turns out to be not notable, then delete. PAR (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Par, did googling that help you? You have to believe me that scientifically pretty competent people on and off WP have tried to find out what this is about, or why it’s notable. This absolutely includes your Google suggestion; of course we’ve read those pages. It didn’t help. If it made you any wiser as to establish notability, I suggest you explain that to us. Otherwise it’s just flippant and makes an already opaque situation worse. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. As said by others, no scientific notability as per WP:PROF, person notable for only one event as per WP:1E. vttoth (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - multiple reliable sources independent of the subject giving significant coverage, hence notable per WP:N. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP - I'm not sure if any of you read the top headlines today, but the story of this kid solving a 300 year old Newton riddle that had previously never been solved, has been picked up from at least a few dozen major news papers: Times of India, MSNBC, TImes colonist, Herald Sun, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkdw (talk • contribs)

The only problem is that this was known for centuries; this is one example where it is discussed in a classic textbook from 1860 as a regular studies material [2]. The analytic solutions were much more important in previous age when there were no computer, nowadays noone bothers going into that much details in a modern textbook, but it is just a 18-19 century textbook material. Terse (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• • [3] does actually have two quotes from physicists: "This story seems rather suspicious" and "calculating the trajectories of falling objects hadn't been seen as a particularly grand puzzle of physics". In other words, yes, this has been exaggerated. And I don't think you've read the comments in favour of deletion above, since we are aware of this coverage. Hut 8.5 20:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • An opinion does not require knowledge of other opinions to be made. Mkdw^talk 20:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
      • You started your comment by assuming we hadn't read certain sources. We have. If you aren't going to at least read your opponents arguments then your arguments are not going to be very persuasive. Hut 8.5 21:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I said nothing more than my lack of knowledge as to whether you were aware or not. No where does it assume or say that you have not. Merely if you haven't, then I'm pointing it out. The other opinions here are not my opponents. This is not a competition. There is no winner. My goal is also not to persuade the other editors either. You seem to have many misgivings about my comment. Mkdw^talk 22:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Um, no. You professed ignorance of what other people think, I was trying to inform you. I should remind you that AfD discussions are not votes, and that if you leave a comment without addressing the issues at hand then it is unlikely to be given much weight by the closing administrator. Hut 8.5 22:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
            • May I remind you the sky is blue? I never suggested this was a vote either. Whether you think my comment does not address the issue is your opinion. I feel it does. I'm in awe that you're an administrator considering the rude nature of your comments. Mkdw^talk 00:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
              • Your opinion and thoughts aren't relevant if you are on the Keep side of this debate. Please refrain.68.50.216.187 (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete pending further developments. He solved Newton's 350-year-old riddle ... and only got second place? What did the winner do? Discover anti-gravity? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• keep this WP page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.90.188 (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral (see below) It certainly goes under WP:BLP1E but if his achievement is a strong breakthrough then we should keep because we 'll see more of him in the near future. I am a little confused though: What did exactly this person solve? Do we have some link to something more specific than just a "old problem stated of Newton"? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "The solution devised by Shouryya Ray, 16, makes it possible to calculate exactly the path of a projectile under gravity and subject to air resistance." Clarityfiend (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per BLP1E. Comments below answered by questions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Teen+solves+Newton+year+riddle/6689853/story.html#ixzz1wDPzOhID

We've seen those vague reports, and they don't help much. However, the equation shown in some reports does not "make it possible to calculate exactly the path of a projectile under gravity and subject to air resistance," since air resistance depends on projectile shape. Clearly a number of simplifying assumptions have been made. -- 202.124.75.16 (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. This kid is obviously incredibly bright, and will no doubt achieve great things, but coming second in a competition (which is all there is, under the hype) is not yet enough for WP:N. -- 202.124.75.16 (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep for now, I guess. Since there has been a lot of news coverage of this, I have a bit of an urge to provide good information (in place of the hyperbole and repeating of unsupported assertions which have been prevalent elsewhere). On the flip side, I did just read WP:INTHENEWS and I do agree that WP:PROF and WP:ONEEVENT argue against inclusion. My biggest fear about deleting the article now is that it will get re-created (if not under this name, then somewhere else) with worse content than what we have now. I can't find any wikipedia policies which directly address whether waiting for a little while under such circumstances is a good idea, but I do see that Wikipedia:Recentism has the text "After recentist articles have calmed down and the number of edits per day has dropped to a minimum," (although they are more talking about rewriting later more so than deleting later). Kingdon (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Considering how uninformative most newspaper articles are I think this article should exist so people can attempt to get some better informaton (like that he won second prize and not first). It would be unfortunate if the only easily availabe source of real information got deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turgonml (talk • contribs) 09:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Coverage in multiple independent media. Things can be notable without being a scientific breakthrough. Taemyr (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment WP:BLP1E specifies three conditions not to have an article, and they are all met:

• If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single evhent -- as the news stories do here.
• If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual -- this 16-year old student is a low-profile individual. He might eventually have a high-profile career, but per WP:CRYSTAL we can't assume that, and most engineers and scientists do not.
• It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented -- winning second prize in a student competition is not significant, and nothing suggests a significant scientific breakthrough has been made. -- 202.124.74.156 (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Delete -- This is journalist sensationalism at its worst. It is questionable if the claim that what he did was unknown is true, this is one off event (like Deolalikar affair but at much lower level), at a local high school project at competition that deals with very well known stuff - this might have stood out at competition, but the unreliable press (Daily Mail - come on!) has blown it out of proportion, with most of the things written simply - wrong. The equation that he holds gives a glimpse about what this work is about - it is indeed analytic solution for the projectile speed in a model with quadratic drag, but it does not even seem original or previously unknown. So unless we have a peer review article and proof that there is indeed anything new or of value, we can safely remove this entry. Journalistic stupidity and sensationalism about things they hardly understand (i.e. unreliable reporting) does not make thing encyclopedic, and the hype itself is not very notable. Hence, delete. Wangleetodd (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You mention the "Deolalikar affair". The fact that when there is no Deolalikar Wikipedia article is a bit of a sweet irony here. Deletionists just don't seem to get it that people come to Wikipedia to learn about stuff - most people don't care whether X is notable etc etc. If 10,000 newspaper articles are talking about the guy, then there should we a Wikipedia article about him. Later on, in due course, the article can be retired or whatever. But right now Wikipedia is the de facto place of reference on the internet - and Deletionists are ruining that. --Brian Fenton (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The "Deolalikar affar" is likely also not notable beyond the Wikipedia community, and the incidental slashdotting. It certainly has no more lasting scientific merit than any of the dozens of papers claiming to prove that P=NP (or not) that appear each year. In any event, there is a record of the affair at the deletion debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinay Deolalikar. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete -- Claims that the result is unknown are untrue. This can be understandable at this relatively low level competition, where the mentors might not be aware that the things were known for more than two centuries - they were only high school teachers for the most part, after all. So an not too knowable mentor tells a sensationalistic story to a newspaper, and a hype is generated based on wrong premise - that this was not known previously. However, in "Mathematical Aspects of Classical and Celestial Mechanics", Arnold & co. claim that this problem was solved by Legendre for a wide class of power law (the Ray covered the quadratic case). So, this is nothing new, the media got it wrong and there is absolutely no reason to keep this article. Godlyhour (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC) — Godlyhour (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. Especially in the case of minors we should be very careful about BLP cases, and this one (with its false claims of novelty) could be somewhat embarrassing to its subject. In any case, it seems to be also a case of BLP1E, as 202.124.74.156 thoroughly documents. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete non notable achievement. I suppose you could put it into an article like Media circus or maybe Gosh darn those scientists are so dumb Greglocock (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - The analytic solution to a quadratic drag projectile problem has been known for over 200 years (Legendre showed how to integrate a more general drag projectile problem). In fact, the analytic solution of the system of equations that can be seen on his poster can be obtained by MATHEMATICA in few seconds - it is hardly a scientific breakthrough; all he did is use a simple subtition psi=v/u (u and v being speed components), which reduces the system to the equation psi``=C * sqrt (1+psi^2) (you can see that on the poster), then u= A/psi' and v=A psi/psi' (A and C are constants) - and integrated psi by means of power series - a standard procedure, though pretty impressive fro a 16 year old to do, it is a routine thing (you can see the power series for psi in the poster, it is in numerator for v(t), in the squared part of poster with expression for u(t) and v(t)). He also solves a variation of the system (towards lower right corner of the poster) with used substitutions pointed out. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW here, and mathematica can spit solution for this in an instant. So, yes, media got it completely wrong, it is not a solution to a 350 year old problem, rather it is a straightforward application of known methods in solving ODE, on the level of exercise problem for students, perhaps even entry level graduate students, but it is hardly even a publishable result even in physics journals (though such papers occasionally do appear). So if journalists got hyped, that does not mean we have to be, fortunately wikipedia has quite a lot of people who can see this for what it really is - you just have to look at the poster by zooming the high resolution image [4] - look at the system of scalar equations on the right beside the bottom of Newton's picture, it reads u'+alpha u sqrt(v^2+u^2)= 0, v'+alpha v sqrt(v^2+u^2)=-g - here alpha is proportional to drag coeffitient, u is horizontal and v vertical component of the speed - these are scalar equations for a projectile problem with quadratic drag, V'+alpha V^2=-G, so clearly this is what he solves; then you see an arrow below is noted substitution psi=v/u, and then second order differential equation for psi, which he solves using power series method. Put this system into mathematica yourself, it will solve it NP. So, this might be great for a 16 year old, he certainly is a bright kid who deserved his SECOND prize on this competition, but it is not a result that deserves such hype, it is not new, certainly not solution to an UNSOLVED problem 350 year old - it is so routine that mathematica solves it. And hence, it does not merit an article about this kid. 78.30.154.210 (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Either significant or insignificant mathematically, there is significance on the fact of all these publications about the subject from major media, a search in wikipedia should record this fact ( that the story was published) preferably with the consensus of the importance (when it is / even though it has been reached). If not with this title then with some related to the incident including keyword that can lead reporters / historic researchers. If it is deleted, it will probably be re-created from people that will have to re-invent the wheel searching what he did. --ntg (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No, per WP:BLP1E, recording it is exactly what Wikipedia should not do. -- 202.124.73.205 (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Not a significant result, already known in fact, one off story. 147.91.66.6 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - This is an article about a teenager who made a significant and notable breakthrough. It needs work to make it encyclopedic, but belongs in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazerdadog (talk • contribs) 04:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC) — Tazerdadog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Significant and notable for a 16-year old student. Certainly not significant or notable by any objective scientific standard. vttoth (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems notable enough to keep.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • On what basis? This isn't a vote. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to media hype where it could be mentioned in a sentence within a section together with other similar, much more prominent cases (like Deolalikar, Bogdanov brothers and other scientific hype cases of various kinds, some of which indeed deserve their own articles). This is a simple case of a minor media frenzy due to misinterpretation of a result which is not new by any stretch of imagination, but the routine application of ODE methods by a young, talented kid whose mentors got overexcited and it all got way out of proportion. Terse (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. --TSchwenn (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete No scientific peer review. All hype by the ignorant press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.70.101 (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete No peer reviewed publications. Overhyped media buzz. Non-notable. Acebulf (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. A BLP1E if I ever saw one. It is certainly an interesting problem to solve, but it isn't as if its the holy grail of physics. Lynch7 19:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  Or, if we get enough good sources confirming that this isn't so great after all (it isn't), then we can expand this article as an example how things are often blown out of proportion by ignorant media. Lynch7 19:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Overhyped in the media. There is no real evidence that this person has actually solved the mathematical problem; on the contrary photographs of an equation and a poster suggest that he has rederived an already known constant of motion and has obtained a series solution for the problem, which does not qualify as an "analytic solution" in closed form. Thus I'd suggest that this article is not newsworthy and should be deleted. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Every once in a while one of these news stories about a "wunderkind" come out, and we have a little AfD about it (remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett?) The relevant criterion for assessing the notability of such individuals is WP:ACADEMIC. Thus Terrence Tao and Karl Friedrich Gauss would have met this standard as teenagers, but Jacob Barnett and Shouryya Ray would not have (yet). In case someone doubts the applicability of WP:ACADEMIC, believing sensationalist journalism in the yellow media makes for a pass of WP:GNG, well we also have WP:BLP1E which clearly also applies here. In fact, given that the subject did not actually solve and unsolved problem, contrary to initial reports, the current story will be of no lasting scientific importance: even the one event for which this subject is presumptively notable is entirely ephemeral. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: The scientific result he has obtained does not exists for us, as there is not any reliable source for it (that should be a scientific source). Thus this is a case of WP:1E, the unique event being a second place in a scientific competition. As none of the past winners of this competition has an article and that the article on this competition does not list the winners. This unique event is not notable enough for Wikipedia. More: WP:BLP1E contains the sentence "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources". In this case, no persistence in the news, thus very low significance. D.Lazard (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, a) per above notes that the equation derived isn't new (so it's not notable on scientific grounds), and b) the press finds something like this to crow about every few weeks, so the press coverage isn't IMO up to notability threshold for its own sake either. If it makes a splash in the academic community and/or press coverage continues for a few months, then it can be re-created with a better argument for notability, but per WP:CRYSTAL we're not there yet. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E. This person is known for one event, and is a news item, not a long term item. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I've no doubt that he will meet WP:ACADEMIC in due time, but now he "only" got the second prize in a yearly competition for German high school students. I won this once, and I've got no Wikipedia article. :-) MichaK (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

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.