Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Aaronson


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Scott Aaronson

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable David Yuppstein (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fandom repository. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.12.77.241 (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2008
 * Comment I don't see how an article about "a faculty member in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology" is really "fandom". Is there any actual policy you think this violates, or do you just not like this? – iride  scent  20:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 
 * Comment This article was added in response to this post by Scott Aaronson suggesting that he warranted a Wikipedia article, which was posted on Slashdot yesterday. —Werson (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see nowhere in that post where he suggests he warrants a Wikipedia article or even suggesting subtly that he should have one. --C S (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. He sounds like a smart guy, and he has a decent Google presence, so I'd love to see this article stay. What it needs is to meet WP:PEOPLE, which says that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." So far, the article does not list any reliable secondary sources at all that discuss Aaronson, just things that he has written. The article claims that he "is the author of the essay Who Can Name The Bigger Number?, widely distributed in academic computer science", so that would make him notable if it were true. What we need is a major source that indicates his article was widely distributed and made a significant impact on the field. If that can be found, Aaronson will be a notable subject. I'm not familiar with the field, so I don't know where to look for something like this. But until there's some real sources that show where he has been cited and why he's considered a leading academic in the field, this article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY, and therefore meets Wikipedia's criteria for deletion. I have a strong gut feeling that he is indeed notable, but the onus is on the article creator to prove it. —Werson (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep. The article in its current state clearly establishes Aaronson's notability in accordance with WP:NOTABILITY and WP:PEOPLE. —Werson (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is, but nominations for deletion should still be made after reasonable attempts of finding sources. - Mgm|(talk) 22:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I feel compelled to point out that I have no idea who the nominator is. I have myself been a contributor to Aaronson's article, despite some skepticism on my part whether he passes WP:PROF; I removed an earlier incomplete AfD nomination put there by an anonymous editor who was unable to complete the nom, and I undeleted a previous speedied version of the same article because I wanted to use some of its text in the present version. While contributing to the article, I found a half-dozen or so other articles in Wikipedia that refer to Aaronson and his works, so there may be an argument here for building the web aside from our usual notability standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, It's always really weird when someone's first edit is an AfD... As for links in other articles -- going through the "what links here" results, most of them are external links.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. An active and promising researcher, but still a very junior one: PhD 2004, was a postdoc till last year, now in the first year of an Assistant Professor position. Has several well-cited papers, but not yet in the notable range. Does not pass WP:PROF yet. Nsk92 (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep. Based on the newscoverage in conventional media, passes WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A reminder that WP:PROF says "If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, if they meet the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria." —Werson (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Quantum Computing is still a very new field and has very few well-known academics associated with it. Aaronson has already received several awards (Danny Lewin Best Student Paper Award at the 2004 ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing; the Best Student Paper Award at the IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity two years in a row (2003 and 2004); the David J. Sakrison Memorial Prize for his PhD thesis (given for a "truly outstanding piece of research as documented in written form"); and the C. V. Ramamoorthy Distinguished Research Award for his paper "Quantum Lower Bound for the Collision Problem). He has already published numerous papers., . WP:PROF is a guideline (and a very difficult guideline to read), but I suggest there is enough here to establish notability within that guideline already. You don't win those sorts of prizes, even as a student, without being exceptional. -- Rodhull andemu  21:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The awards you mention are all at the graduate student level and are thus excluded from consideration by WP:PROF. Item 9 in Notes and Examples section there reads:"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". In general, notability for academics means that someone is already a well-established researcher, not someone who is very junior even if very promising. There are exceptions, of course, when someone solves a major problem or makes a big discovery very early on in their career (even as an undergraduate), but I don't think this case is one of those. Nsk92 (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment, being an exceptional student (winning student prizes) doesn't mean one passes WP:PROF, imo. Nor does publishing papers.  I agree with Nsk92, he seems promising, but a decision to delete would not be out of line with other delete decisions made here recently.  But if you can improve the article, then by all means please do so.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not impressed by arguments about the margins of guidelines, the issue is that this article does not cite reliable independent sources of which Aaronson is the primary subject. As such, it is part directory entry and part bio teased from coverage of fields in which he is active.  I consider thata problem per WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Guy. When he meets WP:PROF we can recreate it. Protonk (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's really disheartening to be the twelfth contributor to an AfD on a borderline topic only to find that only one other had bother to try and add sources to the article. In a two minutes Google News search, one finds citations of Aaronson's work or opinions in The Age, New Scientist, ZDNet, The Guardian, Science News, The New York Times; the scandal concerning the ad agency ripping off his lecture is itself notable, being the primary topic of two articles in The Age. . This is all on top of the points Rodhullandemu raised. This individual is beyond reasonable doubt a noted authority in his field, the type of academic whose work is frequently cited in the non-academic press; precisely the sort, in other words, that our readers expect us to have an article on. If we spent a little more time improving problematic articles instead of discussing whether to tear them down, we would have a lot less acrimony, drama and wasted time on our hands, and a much better encyclopaedia. the skomorokh  01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen some of those linked above with commentary that they represent quotes or namechecks and are not biographical articles w/ Aaronson as the subject. Protonk (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In our defense, all but five of those 12 were posting procedural commentary of one kind or another, rather than actively participating – I, for one, am neither going to vote one way or the other nor edit the article, as I know nothing whatsoever about the field and have no way to judge which material is important other than the totally unscientific "I've heard of this publication" test. – iride  scent  02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Yes, as !voting goes, the rationales given here have been of high quality, but that's not good enough. Many AfD's are open and shut deletes, but for borderline cases where notability is the issue, it's not too much to ask to look through a few pages of Google News searches. If you look at the old VfD debates, many were simply straw polls without rationales at all; I'd like us to keep improving by following GAN's lead and having assessors actively try to address issues. When someone has gone to the effort of creating an information resource, we ought to give the topic a fair crack of the whip. As to the question of "the totally unscientific "I've heard of this publication" test" - point taken, but that's precisely the appeal to authority that our entire notability/reliable sources policy de facto relies upon to a large degree. Regards, the skomorokh  04:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep As a general rule, i am prepared to accept authors of articles in Scientific american as authorities in their subjects. That's usually the basis for selection. If I'm wrong about this, perhaps someone will explain. DGG (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep Seems I've misjudged the sourcing. Protonk (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * keep per Skomorokh. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * keep enough coverage in the media to satisfy Notability. Skomorokh also makes (an) excellent point(s). Calvin 1998 (t·c) 07:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly notable, meets our criteria. Multiple sources attest notability. Verbal   chat  08:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable. rootology ( C )( T ) 14:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. From the sources now added, Aaronson appears to be considered an expert in his field. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Based on extensive media coverage, plus evidence of citation impact. His post-doc is indeed recent, but at the prestigious and very selective Institute for Advanced Study.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the Complexity Zoo, article in Scientific American, citation impact, etc. are enough to establish notability. --Quietly (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not a published researcher in this field, but I have read up on it a lot and Aaronson's name comes up over and over, not just because of the Complexity Zoo but because of his prominent position at a top university, long publication record, and many citations. He's certainly not the most prominent of complexity researchers, but I think he deserves an article. Dcoetzee 19:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as other editors comment, he's recognized as an expert on the field --Enric Naval (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2008 (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.