Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendon Matusch


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Brendon Matusch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a teen scientist, whose notability claim of winning a youth science award is not sourced well enough to make him permanently notable yet. The article features just 107 words of content, but is heavily reference bombed to 20 separate sources of which more than half are carpetbombing a single statement -- and the only references that are substantively about him are "local kid does stuff" human interest pieces in his hometown media, while every single extralocal reference is either a primary source that doesn't count as support for notability at all, or a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that isn't about him. As always, every award that exists does not automatically guarantee its winners a free pass over WP:ANYBIO -- student awards are much less "inherently" notable than professional ones. There's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the subject's science project is related to robotics and neural networking while the creator's username was "Robobug11". Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that there are other articles about EUCYS winners with few other notable accomplishments, such as Liam McCarthy and John D. O'Callaghan and Abdusalam Abubakar. Also, your assertion that the references in question are "human interest pieces in his hometown media" is false -- counterexamples are and. User:Fftgang (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither of those are notability-assisting sources; they're the corporate blogs of organizations, not notability-supporting media. The media coverage, at least the stuff that's actually about him as opposed to just mentioning his name in the process of being about something or someone else, is exclusively from the Sudbury Star, Northern Life and CBC Northern Ontario. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I have removed several of the irrelevant sources, and added more substantial content about the project. User:Fftgang (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - It may be true that there are other scientists from this competition with enduring articles, but the existence of one is not a valid predication for the existence of another. They must all independently meet notability guidelines as per WP:BIO. At cursory glance, it appears that the other two articles you've linked are slightly more notable given their individual record-breaking or uniqueness by way of accomplishments, region, or school. As per the guidelines linked above, one such requirement that, if met, demands notability would be that "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Being the students who afford notability to their entire school for having multiple winners, winning themselves multiple awards, or acquiring coverage in multiple publications for breaking records, notable backstories, etc. would all be distinct criteria for notability that it appears the subject of the article above does not meet.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 20:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as per OP. Subject sources demonstrate coverage in a very narrow set of events, but do not demonstrate notability to levels required by WP:BIO. Sounds like a promising kid, but he's got a few years ahead of him to demonstrate notability.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 20:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per Shibbolethink. 2001:569:7C07:2600:3C11:2232:2F94:9B4 (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Some relevant information has been added to the article: he is the youngest-ever CWSF best project winner. Does this change things at all? User:Greenobscurum 15:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - This doesn't change my vote. Being the youngest ever winner in an award that isn't all that notable in and of itself in the field does not create notability. The notability for the other winners is generated by coverage in third party sources. Even if this is true about the OP, it isn't apparently yet notable for reliable notable third-party independent sources to cover it extensively. At wikipedia, we don't decide notability often on our own. We rely on reliable sources to do it for us.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 17:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, simply claiming that somebody was the youngest person ever to accomplish something that isn't inherently notable otherwise does not, in and of itself, make him special. If it could be shown to have garnered him enough nationalized media coverage to get him over WP:GNG, then that might make a difference — but if something isn't a notable achievement that would ordinarily get somebody into Wikipedia on its own, then being the youngest person in the list is not an instant pass to being more special than everybody else. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete winning a science competition for young people, even one held at national or international levels, does not confer notability. SJK (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:37, 25 November 2018 (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.