Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Wang


 * 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Austin Wang

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing at all suggesting the convincing substance for his own notability as they are only local fairs and my searches have found nothing better. SwisterTwister  talk  17:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  17:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Science fair contestant, with no other claim to notability. Apart from the fair's own pages, there is one news report which mentions him as a prizewinner at the fair that year. That doesn't equal "independent notability" IMHO. --Slashme (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete — I think this article was written by Wang's teenage friends as a tribute and/or tease. I removed some vandalism, and tried to do some cleanup and copyediting a few weeks ago on this, but didn't see enough coverage for a bio, and I still don't. There is some routine coverage in Canadian media:, but I would call it a classic example of WP:BLP1E, where you have short pieces focusing on a person in the news, and then coverage ceases, and the winner remains low-profile. Previous years winners, Raymond Wang (2015), Nathan Han (2014), Ionut Budisteanu (2013) arguably got wider international coverage, but faded from public view.A worthwhile addition to the encyclopedia would be to go to Canada-Wide Science Fair and Intel International Science and Engineering Fair and add lists of winners with brief summaries of their achievements. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Wang is an 18-year-old who won the top prize in an internation competition in science for 18 year olds. He may well make significant contributions to science, but he should be judged on the notability requirements for academics, and he is not even close to passing any at this time. In 10 years if he continues on his course he may be, in 20 years even more likely, but not now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * All true except that WP:ACADEMIC doesn't work that way. It says so right at the top. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and above discussion. --Dcirovic (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources:, . No, this is not a local fair, it is a notable and prestigious contest of international scope. This is not about WP:NACADEMIC, it is about WP:GNG. There is a potential WP:BLP1E issue here but I don't think has made a convincing argument for that. The oldest previous winners is apparently notable enough to have an article and there have been articles created for the more recent winners though there has been no substantial discussion about notability. WP:BLP1E has three conditions and all must be satisfied. Arguably condition 1 is currently met but the case for conditions 2 and 3 are not convincing. ~Kvng (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wang was low profile before this: he had zero coverage. Afterwards, zero coverage. That's what a low-profile individual is. Wang has not done any of the things listed at Who is a low-profile individual. The winners of this competition seem to go on to successful careers, but the award does not confer lasting fame. That's condition 2.The particular winner of this science fair is quite insignificant in the sense that somebody wins every year, and no matter who wins, the rest of the world is utterly unaffected. Without Wang, the ISEF would have had a grand prize winner. Without John Hinkley, there wouldn't have been a Reagan assassination attempt; Hinckley was indispensable. The lack of media coverage or public interest is also evidence that it's not a significant prize; there's a couple news stories after they award it every year, and then nothing until the next year. There is no pre-event coverage, for example, as you would have with a significant contest like the Booker or Nobel Prize, or the World Cup. No comment on what that says about our society. Condition 3 of BLP1E is satisfied.I don't know who asserted that Ionuț Budișteanu is notable enough for an article. Not me, and it hasn't been tested in an AfD nomination. It looks a lot like it was written by an SPA to attract interest in funding Budișteanu start-up. I would bet that Ionuț Budișteanu would be deleted on BLP1E grounds if nominated, because all of the coverage of him occurred in the wake of his science fair prize. The minor planet naming appears to be of little importance; it's simply the arbitrary choice of the discoverer, and there was no media coverage of it . I would nominate Ionuț Budișteanu for deletion myself, but that might be WP:POINTy.Regardless, Wang is even less notable than Budișteanu. And anyway, see WP:OSE and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There's still nothing at all for his own convincing notability and these are simply non-convincing attempts at making the article seem notable, even generally.... SwisterTwister   talk  20:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails notability. Engleham (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2016 (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.