Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Mexico

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to New Mexico. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|New Mexico|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to New Mexico. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Mexico/archive

Purge page cache

watch

New Mexico

Andrew Chael

AfDs for this article:

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

Associate research scholar at Princeton, which is a staff position one step up from a postdoc but not tenure tracked. Part of the Event Horizon Telescope team, but there is no indication that he has played a major role. His highly cited papers are all large team efforts, so there is no evidence of a pass of WP:NPROF#C1, and no evidence of any awards. Page had a lot of unsourced puffery which I removed, but might get reinstated. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Astronomy, and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: though the nominator did not mention it, this does appear to be the same subject as the first two nominations, both of which ended in deletion. I have no opinion about the current article in and of itself, but I do think a third deletion here (should it come to that) would best be accompanied with some salting. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A page on him was deleted in 2019 and 2022, so this one (2025) follows the trend. Looking at the prior AfDs the same criteria apply for my nom: the team effort is notable, but being one of such a massive team does not confer notability. There has to be secondary evidence of a significant personal role, for instance major awards. N.B., I was writing this as Wcquidditch was commenting.Ldm1954 (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments well stated in previous AfDs -- no WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources appears to exist. I would support salting: it may be that the situation changes if/when he publishes a book, receives an award, or similar, but at the moment the notability guidelines are clearly not met. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. This is an area where merely looking at Google Scholar citation counts and h-indexes is not very informative because they are dominated by minor participation in huge collaborations; it is more informative to look at first-author papers. I see 301 citations for "Interferometric imaging directly" (2018), 291 for "High-resolution linear polarimetric imaging" (2016), 188 for "Observing the inner shadow of a black hole" (2021), 188 for "Two-temperature, magnetically arrested disc simulations" (2019), and 168 for "The role of electron heating physics in images" (2018); the rest are below three digits. This is a high enough level of citation to make a weak case for WP:PROF#C1, but I'm not willing to push for keeping the article with that as the only evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm seeing some highly cited and also very highly coauthored articles, which I disregard. After taking those out, there are several papers with a good number of citations, but in a high citation field. I think it is still a bit WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]