Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Ethridge Amini


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Ethridge Amini

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. J bh Talk  11:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  15:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete this is a piss-take. There is no conceivable way that a 16 year old high school student can meet WP:PROF. Minors also required protection under WP:BLP. Le petit fromage (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. It is not unheard of for science fair winners to be notable for that, but we need actual major newspaper coverage and not just contest web sites as sources, and I didn't find anything like that. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Information: Draft:Andrew Ethridge Amini also exists. Fuddle (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete All the sources are from the events he participated in. If he really developed a major medical break-though we would see coverage from outside sources. Well, it is possible no one else realizes that yet, but Wikipedia does not do original research. If he has done ground-breaking scientific work, reliable sources will emerge. For now the article makes unsubstantiated claims and should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2015 (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.