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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Chernyakhovsky[edit]

Alexander Chernyakhovsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

WP:TOOSOON Undergrad student, SPA creater. Borderline A7. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Quite francly I do not even think it is a case of "Too Soon". If this is kept Wikipedia might just as well become a CV repositary. Notability not established. Oxy20 (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Someone went through the effort to properly research a young, upcoming scientist. The deletionist trend on Wikipedia is quite disheartening. What requirements do you want to have for an undergraduate student that has publications, that won multiple national awards? Additionally, I do not know what a "repositary" or a "francly" are, perhaps you meant "repository" and "frankly". If that is the case, please point out how this is a CV? Surely the article can be improved, but it cannot be if you decide to delete it. My personal opinion is that someone that has won multiple national competitions and even has an Asteroid: 24968_Chernyakhovsky named after him is notable! Surely it is worth keeping, few people have that honor.

--18.189.117.151 (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)— 18.189.117.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The asterois probably also fails to meet corresponding Notability requirements. Will probably propose that page for deletion. You have used "upcoming scientist" so you basically you accept that he has not established Notability yet. No evidence of publications in any significant peer reviewed journals. With regard to "What requirements do you want to have for an undergraduate student" - we do not try to assess potential. We assess Notability. No relaxed requirements in this respect for pupils or students. At this point in time, in my view, this requirement is clearly not satisfied.Oxy20 (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the MIT SPAs should please familiarize themselves with the established notability guidelines. There are no "special categories" that accept lower boundaries for students, precocious though they may be. Mr. Chernyakhovsky may indeed be notable in the future, but he isn't now. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. Sources given are all primary sources or otherwise unusable at this point; he needs some outside coverage before he meets WP:GNG. For Mr. Chemyakhovsky, it really is too soon at this point. Good luck, Alexander. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 24968_Chernyakhovsky, the asteroid named after him. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thhink that the asteroid page should also be deleted - does not meet Atronomical Objects Notability Oxy20 (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...you do realize *all* of the named asteroids exist? List of minor planets: 24001–2500018.96.6.177 (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In short, yes we do. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that all named astronomical bodies that are notable enough to be named are automatically notable enough for inclusion here, just as all geographical locations are. We are an encyclopedia, after all. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when have we included geographical locations simply because they have a name? In short the answer is we don't! Polyamorph (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NGEO says Named geographic features are usually considered notable. for starters. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NGEO is an essay, not policy, not even a guideline. Besides that it doesn't say being a named geographic feature alone is sufficient notable for an independent article, in fact it explicitly states the contrary. Every independent article on wikipedia must satisfy WP:Notability, i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources. They can be (and in the case of named asteroids already are) included in a comprehensive list, but not seperate articles unless there is sufficient coverage. As per WP:NASTRO (an actual guideline). Anyway, this is more suited for the other discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. With a GS h-index of 2, total failure of WP:Prof#1. There is nothing else. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. There's an article about him winning a scholarship in the Cincinnati Enquirer but it's not enough for WP:GNG. WP:PROF is far out of reach. And delete his little dog the asteroid too, per WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now also at AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24968 Chernyakhovsky. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Because really, you guys are being really quick to judge. You want publications? Here are some links: Article published in an Elsevier journal, Article Published by ACM, Article published by the AIP -- is this enough? There are more.18.96.6.177 (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — 18.96.6.177 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment. Sorry, but no, a few-cited journal paper and some conference papers are not nearly enough. WP guidelines, especially for BLPs are now quite stiff. Have a look at WP:PROF, for example, to get an idea. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Not an A7 (given the asteroid), but otherwise way too soon. Misses WP:PROF and WP:GNG by a mile. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails our notability guidelines on academics. Sure, this person may become a leading academic one day, but in the meantime wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Polyamorph (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He has 1 paper listed by WoS with 3 citations (h-index 1). With very very few exceptions (like multiple wins of the Putnam (Barton AfD), undergraduate honors/competitions do not qualify either. The SPAs above that geolocate to MIT and the SPA that created the page are evidently unfamiliar with the notability guidelines, which essentially mean that undergraduates, however precocious, rarely if ever pass. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Clearly lacks encyclopedic notability. ylloh (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet GNG, sorry Alex.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—You had me at "h-index of 2". Fails GNG and subject-matter notability guide, this BLP based on WP:SPSes has no policy-backed reason for being kept. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:27, 17 April 2012 (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.