Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rishab Jain


 * 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. L Faraone  00:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Rishab Jain

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Though relatively accomplished for a high school student, I believe this article does not pass the notability test for people. Much of the sources do seem self-cited as noted in the talk page, and many IP edits originate from or near Portland, Oregon so it is likely it's written by someone close to this individual. The awards mentioned here are not "well-known and significant" enough to warrant the creation of a page. I believe this article fails WP:GNG guidelines. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 02:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Although I previously supported a Draftify action, I now oppose deletion. I have rehauled this page completely, removing primary sources and adding the subject's recent, note-worthy accomplishments. There was a significant amount of sockpuppetry as well as what appear to be advertisements that were included on this page. Un-notable references to the subject's "Discord" and "YouTube" were non-notable.
 * I have added more recent, notable achievements. These include a feature by the National Cancer Institute, winning the International Science and Engineering Fair, being named a TIME Magazine 25 Most Influential Teen, and more. The subject meets notability.
 * As per WP:GNG, notability guidelines are failed for pages that do not have "significant coverage." I would agree if the subject had no media appearance since the page was initially created in 2018. However, it seems since 2021 onwards, the subject has been featured in media quite frequently, by reputed sources like TIME Magazine, Teen Vogue, Insider, Yahoo News, uspto.gov, The Hindu, NPR's Science Friday, PBS, etc. Another common issue is with sources and independent of the subject works. I have removed the primary sources and added more objective secondary sources that establish notability. There were also some press releases that were used as references — again, that tied into what seemed to be an advertising/promotional tone. These have been removed and replaced with reputed sources. CraigSut (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just based on a quick search in the news using the 'find sources' feature above, the subject Rishab Jain seems to have been featured in/by the National Cancer Institute, Good News Network , The Times , PhysicsWorld , Pancreatic Cancer Action Network , Pioneer Press , TIME's Most Influential Teens List , Deccan Chronicle , USPTO , Indian Express , Business Insider , TIME Magazine , NPR's Science Friday , American Kahani , The Oregonian , PBS , Pamplin Media.
 * These are just some of the first ones that popped up. There seem to be plenty more. Not all of these are solid sources, obviously, and so only the secondary, credible ones should be included in the page. Take a look at PhysicsWorld, TIME Magazine, and the Insider ones above. I think the page could use some work, but the subject is clearly notable. It's a keep. Side-note: It looks like you're also trying to delete Avi Schiffmann, another notable young person. Little bit confused how some of the most famous activists of Gen Z don't quality for notability. Gitanjali Rao (scientist) is even more notable, pretty much included in every media publication possible, having received numerous humanitarian, United Nations, etc. awards. Deleting on the basis of the 3M Young Scientist Challenge makes no sense here or there. CraigSut (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Although when searching for his name you may find his YouTube channel regarding Discord content, he has become notable in multiple different occasions (see article). ImperialMajority (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

This page seems quite outdated, and there have been numerous primary sources and non-encyclopedic terminology added. It's clearly in need of an overhaul. I believe that the IP edits originated from Portland, Oregon, may not be an issue, however. I myself am from Portland, Oregon, yet have no connection to the subject — rather, I heard about their work from a local congresswoman, and decided to cover some of their news on this page about a year ago. With respect to the awards issue — I believe that Rishab Jain's 'TIME Magazine's 25 Most Influential Teens' is a well-known award. I did a quick check and it seems like almost all of the people on that list meet notability criteria. Furthermore, the 'Regeneron Young Scientist Award' and 'America's Top Young Scientist' award seem quite significant (see Jack Andraka and Gitanjali Rao). As per WP:GNG there seems to be significant coverage. In the past, I have noticed some articles failing WP:GNG due to most sources being primary in nature, as well as dependent on the subject (i.e. advertising, press releases, etc.). I think the page does pass notability, however, needs significant edits to remove the promotional tone, excessive primary sources, and to be quite frank, an 'ugly' page, that does not read cohesively. I recommend Draftify or a significant rewrite from an experienced/the original editor.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CraigSut (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I have just taken a look at all the sources on the page, as well as some new sources online. It seems like the subject was recognized by the NIH and/or National Cancer Institute. This meets notability guidelines. Based on this additional info, I am in favor of Draftify and will begin a rewrite myself. If another editor wishes to draft this article, I would recommend them doing so. —CraigSut (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: Editor changed their !vote in a separate comment locate further up the page dated after this one. —C.Fred (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi CraigSut! Thank you for your thoughtful response and efforts to rewrite.
 * In regards to the IP, one of the edits came from an IP address in Beaverton where the individual is from. I haven't looked too deep into this. You mention that a local congresswoman mentioned this individual's work which prompted your involvement, but there's a lot here that doesn't necessarily merit the creation of a page. For Gitanjali Rao (scientist) (see Talk:Gitanjali Rao (scientist)) and Jack Andraka (less so), the awards in question are not as significant as you might think. They may be relatively significant for younger audiences, perhaps, but the recipients of the 3M Young Scientist award are students in grades 5 through 8. With no disrespect towards their work, the work done by a student at age 14 will most likely not make an impact in the field the world was done in, if at all recognized. I cannot find any mention of "PCDLS Net" in scientific journals or reviews. If we consider the 3M Young Scientist notable, every 11-14 year old who wins could have their own Wikipedia page containing their aspirations of going to some prestigious higher education institution. In regards to the TIME's list, it could be considered somewhat significant on its own, but the notability of the work that warranted the award seems rather weak.
 * There is also the Coca-Cola Scholars award now listed on the page, which on its own is not notable. In the selection process, much of it is done on an algorithmic basis where you must have some amount of volunteering and some academic threshold. Research Science Institute is a summer program for high school students to conduct research at MIT, this doesn't warrant a page either as countless students go through the program. Much of the research made in that program also does not leave a mark in their respective fields either. There is also a mention of a TEDxGateway event that Rishab spoke at. TEDx speakers can be anyone, so this also not convey any significance or notability.
 * The recognition by the National Cancer Institute is a quick spotlight mention on one of their news/press releases. This spotlight also again brings up the 3M Young Scientist award.  Qx.est (Suufi)  (talk • contribs) 04:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Qx.est (Suufi)!
 * Based on the page itself, the individual is from Portland — not the same as Beaverton. Nonetheless, this is not really important as I'm sure numerous individuals in the community/town could have made edits to the page, as I am. I just looked through the edits, and there have been vandalism edits from Portland IPs as well.
 * You point out the 3M Young Scientist Award work as not being notable, with your main argument being that: then every 11-14 year old "who wins would have their own page." I don't think this is the case. The only past winners from this program who have their page are Rishab Jain, Gitanjali Rao (scientist), and Deepika Kurup. The program has been going on for what seems like 16 years. The very fact that the others did not have pages created indicates that the award by itself is not enough for notability. As such, only the most notable alumni (like Rishab Jain, Gitanjali Rao, and Deepika Kurup) have had Wikipedia pages written about them. Gitanjali Rao (scientist) had the 3M award along with a major recognition as TIME's Kid of the Year. Deepika Kurup had the 3M award alongside being named Forbes 30 Under 30. Rishab Jain has had the 3M award along with a major recognition on the TIME Magazine list, Regeneron Young Scientist Award, featured by the National Cancer Institute, etc.
 * As Wikipedians, it is a little presumptuous for you to assume that the TIME list is only 'somewhat significant' and the work is not notable. After all, TIME is one of the most reputed news magazines that we could possible include as a source on Wikipedia. There are also news articles about the subject in Teen Vogue, Insider, NPR's Science Friday, The Hindu, Times of India, Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, and more. There are mentions in Forbes, The Times, PBS, etc. -- however, we must consider that there are actual articles solely written about the subject's work. Your other evidence behind this is that the subject is not making an impact on the field yet. By that logic, pretty much every youth inventor (Gitanjali Rao (scientist), Jack Andraka, Shree Bose, and countless others) would have to have their pages deleted? Further, Jain actually does seem to have some work in review (see ) which the other youth inventors do not. Jain seems to have the 3M Award, TIME Magazine Award, some reviews in Nature Scientific Data etc. etc. along with the Regeneron Young Scientist Award in the International Science and Engineering Fair, inclusion in The Times as well as Insider's lists, and further recognition. Even if we exclude all of the older TIME Magazine, Business Insider, Yahoo News, etc. mentions, the subject does still meet notability for the more recent awards. The recent Regeneron Young Scientist Award is very similar in class to the one for Jack Andraka. There is also an induction into the National Museum of Education's National Gallery for America's Young Inventors. Even by News and Scholar [] there are several mentions to the subject (several within the last year).
 * Furthermore, it is not our ability as Wikipedians, and yourself as a student (as per talk page), to adjudicate whether or not a subject's work/accomplishments are not going to have an impact on science. Unless an editor here on Wikipedia is an established scientist/researcher in the field, and can provide critique, it does not make sense for us to argue on whether or not this subject's work is going to do anything. Instead, the only thing we can do, is look at secondary sources. Jain's work was literally featured by TIME Magazine and the National Cancer Institute. It was also recognized by the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, and interviewed by Allison Rosenzweig, PhD, who writes frequently about pancreatic cancer. This is already far more coverage than is needed to establish notability. Although a less reliable source, the challenge has had their own PhD scientists review Jain's work. His other cancer work seems to have been published in Frontiers in Oncology, Nature Scientific Data, and the International Journal of Radiology. He was also invited as a course teacher, where he spoke about his 'PCDLS Net' work at the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology — one of the world's leading conferences in this area. Jain has plenty of backing on his work in the media — we can safely assume the subject achieves notability this way. Some of the above is not included in the page. As such, the page does need to be revised. However, deletion is completely unnecessary. We just need to add more sources and more information, while maintaining a non-biased tone.
 * The Coca-Cola Scholars and Research Science Institute are clearly listed in the personal life section of the page. I agree with you that these are not notable on their own. I am not claiming that Jain deserves notability for these awards, and you debunking notability for these does not prove anything. These awards are only mentioned in the personal life category for a reason. Many notable figures have went to the Research Science Institute, and so it makes perfect sense to include this in the personal life section as it is clearly a central experience for these scientists.
 * I remain with an oppose-ing viewpoint on this matter. I would like to mention that I have already spent a significant amount of time rehauling this page and would appreciate others editing it further.
 * I am happy to edit the page a little more to add more of these details and backing, however, it would be great if you/other editors could suggest/contribute some revisions as well :) CraigSut (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for the response. A quick Google search of the keywords "Rishab Jain" and "Beaverton" yield a result showing that the individual is indeed from Beaverton, Oregon. I do recognize that there are some vandalism edits from these IPs, likely from someone who knows Jain. Some other edits by IPs from the same geographic region are done in good-faith.
 * The articles you mention are an example of WP:WAX. Anyone can write an article on Wikipedia, but that doesn't necessarily mean the article adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. In fact, Gitanjali Rao (scientist) also has the same notice this article had in regards to sources. This isn't marked on Deepika Kurup, but the Personal Life section indicates self-promotion/conflict of interest and bears the same issues as the other articles. Same goes for Jack Andraka (see Talk Page). These three articles can be proposed for deletion under the same points made under these one. These aren't very popular articles (relatively speaking) on Wikipedia, so they've been overlooked for some time. My argument is not to discredit these young inventors. They are accomplished for their age, but they are not notable enough now to have a Wikipedia page focused on their work which isn't considered significant in realm of academia.
 * The reason I mentioned TIME as "somewhat significant" is because the TIME article that seems to have resulted in Jain's listing refers to his 3M award, not his work. In regards to the work Jain is doing now, see Notability (academics). Specifically, "having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study." The Museum entry is an interesting one, but the induction into the museum involves submitting an application of your work and being voted on by fellow high school students. The entire museum is dedicated to young students in grades K-12.
 * The link of the Google search you have provided lists 10 results, 8 of which refer to his 3M award in 2018. My argument is not that his work will not make an impact on science, but that rather, as of right now, has not made an impact in the field. We cannot create articles on the future/potential notability of an individual. The featuring of Jain on National Cancer Institute also references the 2018 3M award. The backing of Jain in media primarily revolves around Jain's awards, not his work which is the issue at hand here.
 * Going back to Notability (academics), criteria 2 mentions that
 * "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."
 * Jain is currently tagged with Category:American medical researchers and Category:Scientists from Portland, Oregon and based on the above, he does not bear academic notability either so that point cannot be made either.
 * I do want to thank you for your extensive work on this page. Your work is not unrecognized, and it is appreciated. However, respectfully, I would like to point out that this article has been your only source of contributions on Wikipedia, so I would understand the reluctancy of having your work deleted. Jain does have a lot of potential, but as of right now, I do not believe his accomplishments at this time warrant the creation of a Wikipedia page hence why I am still in favor of delete. If Jain does reach a level of notability in the future, this page can be reintroduced, but as of right now, I don't think what we have here is enough. Qx.est (Suufi)  (talk • contribs) 07:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You've only shown that Jain does not meet Notability for academics and completely dodge the extensive sourcing that I provided, focusing solely on the 3M Award. You're also showing initiative to delete Gitanjali Rao (scientist) who is a very notable figure. I'd like to defer to the community on this to see what people think — if these Gen Z changemakers are indeed notable. CraigSut (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Gen Z subjects in question are actually quote a good argument for inclusionism. I'm keen to see how this plays out. CraigSut (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I forgot to respond to the great point you brought up about categories. Jain is definitely not notable for academics, and so feel free to remove the categories of American researcher and scientists, etc.
 * Please see Notability (people): he still meets the general Notability criteria for people, and so it's a keep for me.
 * Context from the notability criteria:
 * "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
 * "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." — hence the multiple independent sources utilized in the context.
 * "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor." CraigSut (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry about that. I did not see the sourcings you provided as these were introduced via edit after I had replied. The multiple "secondary" sources you seem to describe largely consist of quotes from Jain with little to no analysis from the authors. Secondary sources should contain "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" as per WP:SECONDARY. The articles you have sent above seem to mostly lack the synthesis/analysis aspect needed in secondary sources. This seems to largely be the issue with the sources.
 * It's a bit late for me where I am right now, but here's a quick list of issues I found with having these as sources:
 * National Cancer Institute [1 ], just largely mentioning of facts, no analysis
 * Good News Network [2 ], no analysis or interpretation by the author, primarily quotes Jain and describes the award.
 * The Times [3 ], 3 sentence long reference, only 1 of which briefly mentions his work.
 * PhysicsWorld [4 ][5 ], podcast interview with Jain (primary) and mostly quotes from Jain
 * Pancreatic Cancer Action Network [6 ], largely quotes from Jain, no analysis
 * Pioneer Press [7 ], possibly secondary? but very little content here
 * TIME's Most Influential Teens List [8 ], not much content here other than a listing for the award and a brief discussion of Jain's work
 * Deccan Chronicle [9 ], two sentences on Jain, no analysis
 * USPTO [10 ], could possibly argue secondary, but this seems like a biography about the speaker for the event (which tends to involve input from the individual)
 * Indian Express [11 ], brief listing of Jain and his work, just lists the facts known about Jain
 * Business Insider [12 ], a short video documentary of Jain (primary)
 * TIME Magazine [13 ], mostly quotes and indirect quotes from Jain, no analysis
 * NPR's Science Friday [14 ], largely a video presentation from Jain, very little content
 * American Kahani [15 ], mentioning of facts (who Jain is and winning ISEF), no analysis/synthesis
 * The Oregonian [16 ], largely direct and indirect quotes about Jain, little to no analysis/synthesis
 * PBS [17 ], listing of Jain largely consisting of direct quotes
 * Pamplin Media [18 ], largely just mentioning facts about Jain and his work with some quotes from him and his parent
 * I hope this helps to explain where I am coming from. I do believe it's best for the community to decide on these articles, and I appreciate your thoughtful responses. It is true I am showing initiative to delete some other articles, but this is not because of their status as members of generation Z or their activism. There are articles on Wikipedia of generation Z activists that are perfectly fine given that they adhere to WP:GNG. Qx.est (Suufi)  (talk • contribs) 08:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there is a conceptual issue here in what you believe are primary/secondary sources.
 * You state that PhysicsWorld, TIME Magazine, and many more are just "mostly quotes" and thereby secondary sources yet very conveniently ignore MULTIPLE analytic/contextualizing paragraphs, i.e.:
 * An inherent challenge of radiation treatment for pancreatic cancer is accurately targeting the pancreas, which is often obscured by the stomach or other nearby organs, making it difficult to locate. In addition, breathing and other anatomical changes may cause the pancreas to move around in the abdominal area. As a result, radiotherapy can inadvertently target healthy tissue.
 * Doing so can be difficult, since the pancreas is often obscured by other organs, and since breathing and other bodily processes can cause it to move around the abdominal area. As a result, doctors sometimes need to deploy radiation treatment with an “error circle” that ensures they’ll hit the pancreas, but that may kill some healthy cells as collateral damage.
 * Just because an article includes quotes does not make it primary! As per WP:SECONDARY, secondary sources "...rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." I think the table on Woodbury.edu  does a good job of illustrating this.
 * "News article quoting excerpts from the interview" are considered secondary sources
 * This is precisely what the TIME list, etc. are doing. They rely on primary source interviews with the subject, and interpret this information in context. The main "issue" (which is not actually an issue) you have with most of these sources is that they include quotes from the subject. That doesn't disqualify them from being a secondary source... primary sources will typically be the interviews themselves. Secondary sources may include some quotes, which is what many of the sources you cite above do.
 * The U.S. has some of the highest prescription drug prices in the world, which can push patients into bankruptcy over medications they cannot afford. More than three in four American adults think the prices of prescription drugs are unaffordable, prompting the Senate to recently pass a bill intended to help lower prescription drug costs for seniors. One young innovator set out to find his own solution. 17 year-old Rishab Jain developed ICOR, a tool to improve the rapid production of drugs like COVID-19 vaccines.
 * Another excerpt from a source:
 * What makes Rishab’s algorithm so important is that pancreas are difficult to spot as they move around. Currently doctors target radiation in the area they believe pancreas are, in the process also killing other healthy cells. Pancreatic cancer is the 13th most common cancer worldwide, according to a Lancet study from October 2015. With an unusually high mortality rate, it is the eight most common cause of death from cancer. Over a quarter million people worldwide have lost their lives to it. What makes pancreatic cancer so deadly is the lack of symptoms during early stages when it is most treatable, reports CNN. Experts say, there are no screening tools specific to this kind of cancer. As a result, in many cases, the discovery of the disease gets delayed. The detection is often confined to distinct symptoms like abdominal pain and jaundice. Dr Shubham Pant, Associate Professor of Medical Oncology at Houston, Texas, explains the disease in the video below.
 * Take for instance, this source about Jain (RadiologyToday Magazine). This source is by Pamela Q. Fernandes, MD, is a doctor, author, and medical writer who specializes in new breakthroughs in medicine.
 * Machine Learning: Fresh Perspective \ By Pamela Q. Fernandes, MD \ Radiology Today  \ Vol. 20 No. 7 P. 8
 * A major concern when it comes to AI in the medical field is replicability. Jain believes the best way to address that concern is to share the research.
 * Although AI does show much promise, there are challenges in creating a tool like his.
 * Are these not contextualizing statements? Do these not provide some level of analysis? This is clearly not a primary source. These secondary sources should be added to the article, which I can do, but the issue about notability is clear — there are secondary sources that exist about Jain. Your interpretation of what a secondary source is muddled. If each source is doing 'a little analysis' that adds up to quite a bit of analysis about Jain.
 * There are quite frankly so many secondary sources, that I am finding it a bit unbelievable that you are trying to pin it on this point. Let's keep in mind that Jain also qualifies for notability through the honor criteria on WP:GNG for people. CraigSut (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not think this is a conceptual issue of what I believe to be primary/secondary sources. I am following the guidelines listed on Wikipedia and precedence you can find it other articles flagged for deletion.
 * In much of these cases, these are entirely interviews, not excerpts of the interview interwoven with the author's thoughts. From Interviews, "[t]he general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material." You argue that secondary sources may include some quotes, and that is true. But the keyword is some, and these sources are largely indirect and direct quotes of Jain.
 * In many of these articles, that is the case. I did not say the articles are primary simply because they quote Jain, but because they do not offer enough analysis by the author to be considered secondary. For example, the journal article by Dr. Pamela Fernandes is pretty much an interview with Jain. Every paragraph starts with some sentence or question that segues into Jain's own words. There is no synthesis here. The quote that you provided contextualized looks like this:
 * "A major concern when it comes to AI in the medical field is replicability. Jain believes the best way to address that concern is to share the research. “I can write a research paper, display how the architecture works—how it takes an input and the various layers I used in between—and how I fine-tuned it,” he says. “AI is having a huge boom in medicine, but there’s not a lot of documentation and research right now. More research papers would be helpful for those replicating and improving the results.” [...]   Although AI does show much promise, there are challenges in creating a tool like his. “It does take a lot of time, resources, and effort,” Jain says. “After three years of research, I’ve come this far. I’ve created a five-year plan to continue working on the clinical technology and bring it to application in a clinical study but, in the end, it will take a decade to perfect it and bring this technology to the market. A lot of these problems require research, and that takes a lot of time and resources. It’s frightening for those who want to conduct new research. Everything comes with such a cost and possible implications.”"
 * The synthesis is not done by the author, it is done by Jain. These sources are not intellectually independent of the source.
 * That one sentence at the start could be considered secondary, yes, but in the context of the entire piece, the source is not a secondary article and the line likely isn't either. Some possible questions Fernandes could've asked during this interview are "what do you think the biggest concern is to AI in the medical field?" or "what are challenges in making a tool like this?" After all, this is an interview and these are very typical questions. If Fernandes did contextualize what the issues to AI in medicine were in her own words and thoughts, that would be secondary. I unfortunately do not see any interpretation done here. In regards to your other quotes, they could be said to be secondary, but to a large extent, these sources lack Notability (events). If anything, these are descriptions of facts about pancreatic cancer, not the role Jain's work plays in combatting pancreatic cancer. Again, that explanation comes from Jain in following paragraphs.
 * These articles mostly coincide with the occurrence of the event where Jain won the award, they are too close to the individual and the award so their independence on the matter is questionable. As per Primary sources, "[p]rimary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Furthemore, "The TIME magazine article is one of the articles that occur right after Jain won the award. From what I have seen, there is little to no depth in the reporting of how Jain's work affects the field by any of the authors I have seen.
 * The ICOR excerpt comes from an interview with Jain and does not describe Jain's connection to the work, just simply that he has developed a tool to combat skyrocketing prices. The only possible secondary source I see is fourth quote you have provided which comes from . However, at the very bottom of this article, it says that the "[t]his story was auto-published from a syndicated feed. No part of the story has been edited by The Quint." This falls under non-independent sources in SYNDICATED.
 * I have refreshed the page as I wrote this and I will now address your second comment. It is unfair to compare this article to that of athletes. We cannot compare apples to oranges. Athletes tend to follow NSPORTS, and Jain is not an athlete. Jain is very accomplished young man, but Jain's status a "young scientist" is not enough to warrant the creation of a Wikipedia article as per Notability (academics). Additionally, please take another look at Notability (people). Having an honor alone does confer notablility and not having one doesn't make you not notable. Additionally, the academic awards (3M and ISEF, in particular) won by Jain aren't considered notable or significant as per my previous statement.
 * I again do believe this is best left for other Wikipedians to decide. I believe I have made my point extensively here, and my goal is not to persuade you. You do have a vested interest in keeping the article you have worked extensively on, and that is perfectly understand. I am looking to solely state the facts as to why I do not believe Jain's article meets GNG or Notability (academics). This AfD article has gotten very long and major apologies to anyone who stumbles here. If you would like to continue this debate, the Talk Page might be the best place. Thank you.  Qx.est (Suufi)  (talk • contribs) 06:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your position and the arguments you have made, however, my position is still a keep — I think this article should not be deleted.
 * In my view, a lot of the sources are indeed synthesizing and analyzing. Comparisons to existing research and other figures are essentially synthesis and analysis. Your definition of a secondary source is clearly different than what most people view it as.
 * You continue to intentionally make hasty generalizations so I don't see any point in continuing to argue here. After this comment, I will not engage on this page anymore unless other Wikipedians contribute. You intentionally ignore the TIME 25 Most Influential list, National Cancer Institute feature, being added to the National Museum of Education's gallery, Insider List, Giuseppe Sciacca International Award, and much much more, and instead default to the (3m) "America's Top Young Scientist" and (ISEF) "Regeneron Young Scientist" awards, since you can attack those easily as being simple academic awards. Just because two awards Jain has received do not give notability by themselves, it does not automatically disprove the others???
 * The continued, intentional generalizations you make on this page (and at Avi Schiffmann makes me think that you have some external motive/bias here. It is interesting that your deletion flag also was created DURING the timeframe of extensive vandalism attacks on the article. I see that this is the same date that Jain posted a YouTube video about Massachusetts Institute of Technology, . It is interesting that you also then proposed/encouraged deletion for Gitanjali Rao, another Gen Z activist who is a researcher at MIT. Since Rao and Jain will be students at MIT, I see a clear COI here.
 * I agree that The Quint article is syndicated, however, I am unable to find the original source of the article. It is possible that The Quint accidentally labeled its article as auto-syndicated, as:
 * Dr Shubham Pant, Associate Professor of Medical Oncology at Houston, Texas, explains the disease in the video below.
 * This type of external analysis/context that The Quint provides is not seen elsewhere online (at least indexed by Google) which leads me to think that the article was labeled as syndicated, when it may not have actually been.
 * You also go in-depth to label Fernandes as a primary source. Even if it is, there are still PLENTY of secondary sources. See what I wrote in my previous response:
 * "You state that PhysicsWorld, TIME Magazine, and many more are just "mostly quotes" and thereby secondary sources yet very conveniently ignore MULTIPLE analytic/contextualizing paragraphs"
 * You are doing this once again. I don't see any point of debating with someone who clearly wishes to strawman this argument to discredit others' positions. Instead of going extensively to disprove this article, we could have instead improved the article & added more secondary sources.
 * Even for sports/athletes, you still need secondary sources. Yes, there are different notability criteria, but my point about secondary sourcing still stands. The majority of the articles we see do not have any secondary sources by your logic, and therefore none should exist on Wikipedia. This would result in a huge number of articles being deleted.
 * In my eyes, this is a clear meta issue of inclusion.
 * My extensive defense of this page should warrant at least a community discussion as I believe this (and Gitanjali Rao & Avi Schiffmann, two others that you wish to have deleted) are important articles for Gen Z activism. Even on Avi Schiffmann's page, you completely ignore the sources that have pages and pages of independent analysis and synthesis, so it's clear you are intent on deletion even after additional evidence has been brought up. For example, you labelled these multiple CNN articles not conveying notability as well???
 * If NONE of these articles for Schiffmann, and now Jain, convey notability in your eyes, I am at a loss of words for what does? If these articles are primary sources then every article that is not a critique or review of a person will be primary, in your eyes. It is a definition debate here: what is primary and what is secondary? As per the Woodbury.edu page I gave above, along with Wikipedia's own tables, many of Jain's sources do indeed qualify as secondary sources.
 * keep. I'll keep any future discussions on this article's talk page, or the main article's talk page. If any other Wikipedians want to weigh in, it would be much appreciated as well. CraigSut (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If we look at any article, i.e. Orlando Brown Jr., you will see that nearly all of the 'secondary sources' utilized are majority quotes: . By your logic, nearly every source on nearly NFL player's Wikipedia page is not a secondary source, because it is quotes?
 * I find it interesting that we are debating on the notability of someone who has been interviewed and written about extensively and is far more notable than hundreds of current and historical NFL players. Wikipedia already lacks pages about scientists, especially those of color and in minority groups (which youth/young scientists are a part of!)
 * This page is also a matter of Inclusionism. The article is factual and retains merit and usefulness. With my recent improvements, I think it deserves a keep.
 * Furthermore, the iterative nature of Wikipedia will help us add more secondary sources, solving your concerns. I will take a look at this once more tomorrow, and add additional secondary sources that contain significant analysis and synthesis. CraigSut (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that we are debating on the notability of someone who has been interviewed and written about extensively and is far more notable than hundreds of current and historical NFL players. Wikipedia already lacks pages about scientists, especially those of color and in minority groups (which youth/young scientists are a part of!)
 * This page is also a matter of Inclusionism. The article is factual and retains merit and usefulness. With my recent improvements, I think it deserves a keep.
 * Furthermore, the iterative nature of Wikipedia will help us add more secondary sources, solving your concerns. I will take a look at this once more tomorrow, and add additional secondary sources that contain significant analysis and synthesis. CraigSut (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I have pretty much finished rehauling this page -- no longer in favor of Draftify. I have removed all primary sources from the page, including references to the subject's LinkedIn and Twitter. This page seems to receive occasional low-quality edits, in which such primary sources keep getting added. I first removed any of these primary sources, then attempted to find additional sourcing for the information. If no sources were available, the edits were removed. With the subject's more recent recognition, such as the international awards and feature by the National Cancer Institute, I think it is clear that they meet notability guidelines. The page also previously had issues with promotional content, and biased points of views. I have attempted to bring in neutral language and an encyclopedic tone. I now OPPOSE the deletion as the page and subject meet WP:GNG guidelines. —CraigSut (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero  Parlez Moi 13:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators.  Qx.est (Suufi)  (talk • contribs) 02:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Oregon.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I oppose the deletion, please keep. 134.134.139.78 (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * delete clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON as he does not yet pass WP:NPROF. He has an impressive GS citation profile for his age, but not something that is currently sufficient to pass NPROF. --hroest 17:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * Kindly retain this page as it contains erroneous allegations about a deserving researcher. I reside in Portland where the Rishab is well known researcher in the community, and it wouldn't be astonishing if the town's residents contribute to his cause. Rishab's achievements have been corroborated by independent third parties, while on the other hand, there have been several instances in the past where jealous parents and negative elements in society have questioned his integrity. Nevertheless, every time, his accomplishments have been verified by independent third parties. Rishab has inspired so many kids younger and older to get excited about science and research. 134.134.139.78 (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to inquire about the individuals who are requesting deletion. Are they from Portland or are they possibly relatives of students who may be envious of Rishab's success and are now attempting to undermine it?
 * Every year Rishab is delivering new research results to the world. Let us support this deserving researcher to continue on his mission! 134.134.139.78 (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure of what errgenous allegations are being made here. In your argument, you are suggesting we retain this page about a "deserving researcher", but the matter of fact is that this article does not meet Notability (academics) as mentioned by hroest. This point is also supported by CraigSut who has contributed heavily to this article. Being a well-known research within a community isn't enough to meet the guidelines listed there, and the achievements you're mentioning are explicitly said to not count towards meeting those guidelines. While it is unfortunate that his accomplishments and integrity have been questioned by jealous parents and negative elements in society, it doesn't change the issue at hand here. In regards to your inquiry, I am neither from Portland nor related to Rishab Jain in any way. I am not a relative of any student who knows Rishab as far as I know. But, I do need to point out that Wikipedia article are not meant to "support" researchers on their mission. You seem to be hinting towards what may be a violation of Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Qx.est (Suufi)  (talk • contribs) 05:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that in my discussion with Qx.est, we agree that the subject should not be classified as an academic. His notability should be weighed under general Notability guidelines. CraigSut (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rishab Jain, a proven child prodigy researcher, visited Dublin a few years ago. I attended his lecture, and since then, I occasionally track his and other researcher pages, particularly after the passing of my family member with pancreatic cancer. Jain's sources are credible, and he has been working in research for 5 years, receiving recognition every year. He generates over 15K-20K hits on search engines, and his latest paper publications on Sarcopenia and Recombinant vaccination are published in academic journals. His Time magazine, Planet named after him,  attests to his recognition. Unfortunately, our media doesn't cover scientists with same vigor as other disciplines like sports or music or politics. But Jain got fame as researcher and deserves to keep it! We should encourage researchers to focus on research instead of getting famous in media. His page inspires so many youngsters. Jain deserves to be tracked on Wikipedia for his research, Discord work, and Youtube work. His biography seems to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Comments above about a request for deletion due to a Gen Z/ Qx.est show Conflict of interest for request to delete other student pages. I looked through their work and this seems to be the first page requested by them like this. Two years ago, Jain's page was vandalized with inappropriate comments from other students, which were stopped. Jains wikipage has been up for at least 4-5 years now. I disagree with the requestor's arguments and support keeping the page. Oliver1981161 (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC) — Oliver1981161 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hi Oliver! I'm sorry to hear about your family member's passing. This was mentioned earlier, but Rishab's work does not meet Notability (academics) guidelines. I cannot find evidence of the 15-20K search engine hits, and the recent publication you are mentioning does not have a significant enough citation rate as mentioned by criteria 1. The recognitions you are also mentioning have mostly, if not all, been "victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements" which also do not count towards criteria 2. These are the only two criteria which might be relevant for Jain's status as a researcher. Jain's Discord work and YouTube work do not appear to be substantial enough to have a page created as a CREATIVE which deviates far from the sources about Rishab and his work. On a semantic note, I would like to point out is that an asteroid (considered a minor planet) was named after Rishab, not a major planet, because he was "a finalist in the 2019 Broadcom MASTERS, a math and science competition for middle-school students, for his medicine and health sciences project." The WGSBN consistently names asteroids after finalists in Broadcom MASTERS and Regeneron Science Talent in nearly every bulletin, so I do not think this conveys notability on its own.
 * Given the millions of pages on Wikipedia, the amount of time a page has been up does not indicate if it does or does not meet notability. It's very easy for anyone to create a Wikipedia article about anything. Additionally, my affiliation or not affiliation with generation Z does not present a conflict of interest with this article. That's not what Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is.  Qx.est (Suufi)  (talk • contribs) 06:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment -, do you realize you have !voted multiple times? You are only permitted one !vote, yet you continue to add the word K**p in bold. Also see WP:BLUDGEON. Allow the discussion to unfold naturally and please stop with the huge walls of text. Closing administrator please take notice. Netherzone (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This page is, frankly, a mess of multiple !votes and SPAs. —C.Fred (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Closing administrator, please take notice. The user has been blocked as a sock puppet. Their !vote should probably be disregarded. There are multiple !voters, SPAs and sockpuppets involved in this AfD. Netherzone (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment -, you have !voted twice. Closing admin, please take notice. Netherzone (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC).
 * Delete per WP:TNT due to sock puppetry, SPAs and other shenanigans; and also per WP:TOOSOON; failure of WP:NPROF and possible COI/UPE. Netherzone (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:Too soon. CajunDiscordian (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nom's rationale. Fails WP:GNG. Onel 5969  TT me 20:43, 30 March 2023 (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.