Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Vidal Streich

: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 redirect to 23116 Streich and delete history per consensus. Also, I did take note of the fact that the nominator only has 4 edits as in my view, AFD nominations should be made by here compliant editors. However, he could be a long time IP editor who created the account in order to make the nomination. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

=[[Philip_Vidal_Streich]]=

:{{la|Philip_Vidal_Streich}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philip_Vidal_Streich Stats])

:({{Find sources|Philip_Vidal_Streich}})

This page is in clear violation of WP:N. Web searches for the individual in question produce several identical copies of the article text, some of which come from profiles on various social media sites, establishing that this is nothing more than a vanity page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YJyIBAsR69G (talk • contribs) 04:59, 8 June 2012‎

Delete Not notable. Despite having an asteroid named for him. Mcewan (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Question This is clearly a problematic article (POV, overblown, etc), having been edited by a succession of SPA editors and anonymous IPs (the latest one tracing back to Harvard University). However, I think the nom is problematic, too: somehow I cannot take a nom serious that is the very first contribution of a specific editor (who doesn't even sign the nom). So I would be interested in hearing from the nom why the references present in the article are insufficient to satisfy WP:N, what the nom thinks about the fact that an asteroid has been named after the subject, and what effort the nom has made to uncover possible other sources not yet present in the article that might establish notability (per WP:BEFORE). Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:PROF. Has a handful of papers, but is first author on none. He is one of three [http://www.intel.com/education/ISEF/2007winners.htm] winners of the 2007 Intel International Science and Engineering Fair. Will probably go far, but does not currently satisfy WP:N. -- 202.124.72.221 (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete: with Guillaume2303 I'm also sceptical about the editor of the nom, but after checking G, GNews, etc. I couldn't find enough for WP:N.-- Dewritech (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Weak Delete: on TOOSOON. A lot of great awards and press, but basically all at the "young with promise" stage, not what we generally consider to be sufficient professional awards. Could probably be recreated in a few years, so definitely re-research at a future AfD if it's > 2014ish. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to 23116 Streich - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 15 June 2012 (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.