Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Mitchell

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Mitchell

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

This article claims some impressive sources: the New York Times, Wired, Scientific American. Unfortunately, none of these sources actually mention Lewis Mitchell. As such, I believe this article fails the general notability guideline as well as the notability guideline for academics. MrOllie (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added his appointment as the Edward Lorenz Postdoctoral Fellow in the Mathematics of Climate, a prestigious position from the Mathematics Climate Research Network. I believe this qualifies for "2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." This can be seen on the sidebar of http://www.mathclimate.org/ under network tab. IheartDA (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)IheartDA[reply]

Criterion 2 is for awards such as the Nobel or the Fields medal. Can you provide any sources to establish that this fellowship is particularly prestigious? - MrOllie (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A postdoc appointment isn't a prestigious academic award. The MCRN doesn't seem even a prestigious institution; I don't see any tier-1 universities in their network. The references to Science, New York Times, and even Wired are just fake; as nom mentions they don't refer to the subject. I can't find any independent, reliably sourced, third-party coverage. That is not particularly surprising for a recent post-doc. Churn and change (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it appears that the criterion for notability are just higher than I thought. Thanks for your time in making sure that all the pages up here are for only the most notable scholars. Cheers IheartDA (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)IheartDA[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG and BIO. Lacks significant coverage by multiple secondary sources. Additionally, Claims that "Recent media attention for this work has been widespread..." supported by multiple fake references is clearly questionable, perhaps even WP:HOAX.--Hu12 (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of any sourcing indicating that he meets WP:PROF. Qworty (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being a competent professional/academic is not a basis for notability. WP:GNG is not met.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:55, 3 November 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.