Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Loo

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. Sandstein 20:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Loo

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

This person as a whole is not notable nor influential, and does not meet wiki standards for biography of a living person.

His awards' notability is questioned. At least it is very debatable whether his awards are truly notable by wikipedia standards. They could be achievable easily by others. His only research is not worthy of wikipedia's coverage. In the field of mathematics (higher maths), this piece of research work is insignificant and simple to be produced by experts.

The major contributor & creator is suspected to be autobiographing together with a few of his family members or close friends. There is a huge conflict of interest in creating a wiki as a resume. Moreover, several accounts are suspected to be involved in sock puppetry (requires further investigation with admin power), thus protecting this article from deletion earlier on. The article relies majorly on 3 sources of references only, with multiple dead links. (namely HK Government, the competition website, and the journal)

minor: There is also a noticable amount of edits by blocked users or IP adresses.

(Disclaimer: Suspection is different from accusation. "Suspection" implies uncertainty. 1. Admin attention is therefore humbly sought. 2. A wrong suspection does not equal defamation.) Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 11:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the dead links should be tagged and then they will be fixed by internetarchivebot, passes WP:GNG with those links restored, olympiad gold medal is a notable prize and the conflict of interest and sockpuppetry is an allegation that has not been proven.Atlantic306 (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC) 17:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~; Reply Links, even if fixed, does not provide much evidence for his notability. The prizes achieved are from the same source. And that competition is a high school competition only. It is not notable in the field of academia or mathematics. Many teenagers get those awards each year. His achievements are not notable as a whole. The notability and originality of his research is doubted. It is uncertain how much help he obtained for his maths paper. His contribution to the mathematical field is very limited up to date. It is impossible to prove COI. Wikipedia accounts do not legally request people to register with true names. It can only be verified graudally with evidence. In this case, sock puppetery adds to the evidence. He is a living young adult. This article is a biography of a living person. Use BLP (mathematician) standards.Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 07:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a minor note to the nominator: your deletion statement at the top of the Afd would be considered your delete !vote. In which case you should not bold 'delete' again below. It's unlikely to confuse the closing admin but it's just the way we do things... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder! Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 06:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only claim to fame here is the Olympiad performances, of which his best is the 2011 Physics gold medal. But there were 50 gold medalists that year, so I don't think that's enough by itself to stand out. In previous AfDs, even participants with significantly better Olympiad records had doubt expressed that that was enough, and instead had to rely on other types of notability such as in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources — see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reid W. Barton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teodor von Burg, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Sauermann. But in this case, all we have are contest scores, deadlinks, and press releases (or sometimes combinations of the above). The research contributions are certainly not enough for WP:PROF, despite the name-dropping, especially as they appear in a dubious journal (its publisher, Hikari, is on Beall's list of predatory open access publishers [1]). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete I must say, as a maths teacher, that Andy 's achievements sometimes look impressive from the outside and less than 1℅ of high school students could get that. However, as David Epstein pointed out, it's not notable enough for wiki. And I suspect that he might have got extensive amount of help from real mathematical professionals on his publication on prime numbers. And it's actuallt not that original ( his approach). It appears to me that Andy is most probably combining solutions from various more significant research works. It's got a low significance in the field of mathematics. Hope my comments help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.108.9 (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.