Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Sauermann


 * 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   keep. L Faraone  23:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Lisa Sauermann

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Why does this article exist? Evidence why it shouldn't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iurie_Boreico http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Scholze http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Darij_Grinberg

The same arguments as in the discussions linked to above apply here. Even much more strongly here, since the subjects above are tremendously more notable in terms of their research output (in particular Peter Scholze) and have still been excluded. Brainiac1729 (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I call into question the subjects notability and the categorization as a mathematician. According to WP:ACAMEDIC winning high school competitions is not a valid criterion for notability. To the second point there is no evidence cited as to the contributions to mathematics of the subject and if they bear sufficient significance for inclusion in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainiac1729 (talk • contribs) 17 May 2013


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 14.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  14:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Nomination by a brand-new user that is purely WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTNOTABLE - no policy-based reason for deletion. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - I gave good rational reasons for deletion. You did not refute these reasons. I plan on making contributions to wikipedia other than this proposal... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainiac1729 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree the nomination rationale amounts to "X was deleted, so Y should be too". However, in assessing the subject's notability, she fails WP:GNG as none of the three sources on the article is about her (though one of those three is open to debate) and I could find no further sources about her. WP:ACADEMIC specifically excludes winning high school student competitions as a criterion for meeting that notability guideline. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 16:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 *  Delete Keep Student competitions are not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia, by longstanding precedent. I see no other claim to notability. The nominator unfortunately muddled his writing in such a way as to suggest WP:OTHERCRAP, but his underlying rationale seems to be in line with our notability guidelines. Ray  Talk 14:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * On further examination, there are sufficient interviews and other coverage of the subject to meet the WP:GNG requirement of significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject, on the Gnews link above (including several articles on Der Spiegel, which for some reason I cannot get to at the moment). Ray  Talk 14:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep - No valid rationale presented by the nominator, outside of a handful of OTHERSTUFF links. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The so-called OTHERSTUFF links are deletion discussions, some of them quite detailed, about similar individuals.  These prior discussions, and the consensus that they formed, are imminently relevant to the matter at hand.  It's very unfortunate that even among common participants in AfD discussion, OTHERSTUFF seems to have become a magic bullet to head off any argument.  So much so, in fact, that someone has actually suggested that there is such a thing as a "Procedural keep" that can be applied.  Hopefully to set this misconception to rest, I cite the very WP:OTHERSTUFF policy, which says quite clearly "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates."


 * That said, the nominator should have provided some analysis of these debates, as he tried to do here. I don't think the original deletion rationale should have been struck through though.  What these prior discussions show is that there is a long precedent that student accolades of an identical, or nearly identical nature (IMO/Putnam), to the subject under discussion are in and of themselves not sufficient to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC.  This is fully consistent with the language at WP:ACADEMIC, and shows that a literal reading of that guideline is fully consistent with the community consensus as pertaining to individuals that have performed outstandingly on the IMO: "Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1."   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to note that the reason the original nomination rationale was struck was because the nominator deleted his/her original rationale, and as a result the subsequent replies and comments made no sense (WP:REDACT). I reinstated the comments with the strikethroughs so that other users could see what exactly the "speedy/procedural keep" !voters were responding to. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Doesn't yet meet WP:ACADEMIC but meets WP:BIO through ample coverage in reliable sources, though many of them are German. The article in Spiegel stands out. Her German Wikipedia article also has more sources. Gobōnobō  + c 17:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * weak keep The article might fail WP:Academic, but she did receive some press coverage as well. Moreover Brainiac1729 seems to be a single purpose acount bend on deleting that article in all interwikis without really bothering what local might apply (WP:ACADEMIC for instance does not exist on de.wp, but he cites it their anyway).--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2013 (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.