Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benedict Huang


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Benedict Huang
Although I am impressed with this gentleman's scholorship and the fact he has achieved some remarkable things, I am not sure that he has reached the level for an encyclopedia article yet. Total of 104 Google hits, about one quarter are submitted items from hotel reviews, info pages, etc. rhmoore 22:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 00:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, if this guy actually achieved everything the article claims, that would be remarkable and probably worth an article. But I can't verify any of this.  For example, this search only returns 3 hits, and they would definitely be a ton of news articles on such a student.  FWIW, creator has only ever edited two articles, one of which is this, and the other Norman Yao; I see a pattern here. --Deville (Talk) 03:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - not sufficiently notable. --Ajdz 06:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete it would be quite notable being the best U-20 in the whole world in a variety of subjects against sports-academy trained communist-bloc students, if it were not for the fact that it is a hoax. There is no record of Benedict Huang at the IMO2001 list, no record of him representing the United States in mathematics.ßlηguγΣη  | Have your say!!! - review me 07:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * More - looking around at |US chemistry olympiad selction database doesn't yiedl much either. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 08:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The dates don't work. He would have had to participate in the IMO while in 7th grade. Fan1967 20:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as probable hoax. IMO would be pretty much borderline even if verified. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as almost sure hoax. Anyway, if reliable references would be given, I think we should keep. gala.martin ( what? ) 17:10, 30 April 2006 (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.