Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yannis Assael (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:44, 23 January 2022

Yannis Assael

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article that was deleted under AfD per WP:TOOSOON one year ago. The only change since then that I see is that he was on the Forbes 30 under 30, which we do not usually regard as contributing to notability (and indeed, which is often a sign that it is WP:TOOSOON). WP:BEFORE showed similar citation record as previously for WP:NPROF, and few other signs of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided in the first AFD. No new deletion rationale is presented in this nomination. Enough reliable sources have been provided to justify my keep vote. Birdsandwasps (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Er... The first AfD ended in a deletion. What notability criterion do you think the subject meets? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry I had another look at the deletion page. Forbes provides strong notability in conjunction with the rest of the sources (top journals and mentions in several reputable publications). I will try to expand the article during the weekend. Regards Birdsandwasps (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon for a very high-citation field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Note I included mentions straight from the Financial Times, BBC, the Observer and Science Magazine. Surely, these are more than enough to comply with notability within international press? Birdsandwasps (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a source doesn't mention the subject (as most of the ones you mention do not), or only mentions them once (as does the FT), then it doesn't contribute much towards notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BBC has shared a quote by the researchers, which links to the PDF version of the publication under their names. Financial Times and the Verge both mention Y.A., whilst Observer highlights Pythia too. I don't really see the problem here. Birdsandwasps (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I voted delete in the previous discussion but in its current state the article should remain. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 *:If a source doesn't mention the subject (as most of the ones you mention do not), or only mentions them once (as does the FT), then it doesn't contribute much towards notability. [[User:Russ Woodroofe|Russ Woodroofe]] ([[User talk:Russ Woodroofe|talk]]) 13:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 *::BBC has shared a quote by the researchers, which links to the PDF version of the publication under their names. Financial Times and the Verge both mention Y.A., whilst Observer highlights Pythia too. I don't really see the problem here. [[User:Birdsandwasps|Birdsandwasps]] ([[User talk:Birdsandwasps|talk]]) 13:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
+* '''Keep''' I voted delete in the previous discussion but in its current state the article should remain. [[User:Mightberightorwrong|Mightberightorwrong]] ([[User talk:Mightberightorwrong|talk]]) 13:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)