Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Gonzalez Pasterski


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  19:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sabrina Gonzalez Pasterski

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Do you think she is truly notable for a Wikipedia article? I feel that at the very least, many of the sources exaggerate her achievements. Uval123 (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Students are almost never notable, and this one is no exception. She hasn't got a single cite on GS (normally one looks for ~ 1000). Misguided article creation is no reflection on subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC).
 * When I search author:s-Pasterski I see citation counts 67, 30, 18, 18, 6. Still too low for notability that way, but not zero. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There is more detail on Inspire, but still not enough citations to pass. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC).


 * Delete -- non notable PhD candidate. Sources do not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- still very borderline: lot's of hype, but not a lot of substance. Inc.'s profile ("10 things...") is along the same lines: since when being offered a job is an accomplishment? Scientific American piece is an interview; if it were a bylined profile, I think it would have pushed me to "Keep". The coverage seems rather trivial at this point.
 * That said, the subject is much closer to passing GNG vs some of the articles I've seen closed as no consensus. See, for example, this frankly garbage article Lisa Tenner with zero substance and weak sources (version as closed). So it seems like closing as "no consensus" may be appropriate in this case... K.e.coffman (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and I would've PRODed instead. SwisterTwister   talk  02:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think the article is close to borderline, but over the edge toward keep. In the past year or two, she has had quite a few newspaper articles, and has received the Hertz Foundation fellowship, which would seem to meet Criteria 2 for academics. She has also been named a Lindau-Nobel Young Researcher some years back, which is an international organization teamed with Nobel Laureates, again leading towards Criteria 2. She has been featured in Forbes and Scientific American as well. Her CV still needs to grow, but I think she has passed the threshold for notability.- Pax  Verbum  03:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I think she doesn't pass WP:PROF (WP:TOOSOON, citations don't yet demonstrate impact, too difficult to untangle student accomplishments from their usually-more-notable advisor's, student awards don't usually count, etc). But there is a pretty good case for WP:GNG, especially for the Scientific American and Inc profiles (the Forbes one appears to be insufficiently in-depth, though). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep She's borderline on WP:ACADEMIC criterion 2, per Pax85, which seems to be the point being made by commenters questioning the importance of her achievements. Although  a paper she solely authored, and two she co-authored, have been cited by Steven Hawking, so that's at least three. But she easily passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO, per for example Chicago Tribune, Ozy, and News.com, and that's enough. FourViolas (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think WP:TOOSOON applies here as this person is still a PhD student. Blythwood (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:PROF.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete she is a PhD candidate. She may eventually be a notable physicist, but she is not such yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * She doesn't need to be a notable physicist. She's a notable student, on the basis of her extraordinary research and engineering accomplishments, as attested by lots of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. FourViolas (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per TOOSOON. Lepricavark (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep agree with FourViolas (talk) that she has enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet general notability requirements. She is not mentioned merely in passing in these articles, she is the primary subject of almost all of the cited sources. CrispyGlover (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep GNG is covered by the significant third party coverage (portrait articles in Scientific American, Chicago Tribune, Latin Times), she doesnt need to pass WP:ACADEMIC - though I think she does (prestigeous Awards).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep She does not meet WP:PROF, but she meets GNG quite comfortably: see, , , , , , and . Vanamonde (talk) 18:06, 15 August 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.