Deletion of Hari Bhimaraju

Comment: I had a look at this an the sources unfortunately are not good enough. This is essentially a human interest story and a biography about a generally low profile individual and is precisely what  is about. The coverage is also largely local and a bunch of primary sources have been used in the article. Let's have a look at the sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The subject is clearly a very intelligent child, and will no doubt be notable one day, but she is not there yet. A winning science fair project does not make for notability, and the article is full of , such as "she was particularly thrilled to meet Bill Nye the Science Guy." {{Fixed}} The subject does not meet , which is the relevant criterion. She has not "received significant coverage in '''multiple published secondary sources''' that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," nor has she "received a well-known and significant award or honor" like the Nobel Prize. -- Special:Contributions/120.17.44.177|120.17.44.177
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipuffery (WP:PUFFERY||WP:BIO)

Comment: I became aware of this discussion via a note at WT:PROF. I largely agree with Lemongirl942's analysis of the sources. And as much as I am personally sympathetic to the value of us covering young female scientists, my reading of policies and guidelines leads me to a close-call of delete – and policies and guidelines should determine the consensus here, not editors' likes and dislikes. The subject is primarily recognized by way of having been selected to present at a White House science fair (attended by President Obama and Bill Nye) along with with other students, and having won a national STEM competition for middle school students. Does she satisfy  as a scientist? No, because the note to criterion 2 states: {{tq|Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1.}} It's not a "major award" in science, as Wikipedia defines it (see the paragraph just above the one I quoted at ). Furthermore, , first point, says that a basic characteristic of notability for having done something in science is: {{tq|The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline...}}. In other words, other scholars have built further investigation upon the work of the page subject. Per the available sourcing, that has not yet happened. So she does not pass PROF. But does she, instead, pass  or ? The first point of ANYBIO is about a {{tq|significant award or honor}}, and I just dealt with that above. The second point is {{tq|The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.}} Note: "part of the enduring historical record", which is very much as how PROF describes "significant impact". So we are left with GNG or . BASIC requires multiple secondary sources that are {{tq|intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.}} This is where it gets close, and we are almost there, but not actually all the way there. Because so much of the sourcing derives from winning the middle school award and going to the White House, it's worth looking at those two events in terms of . The coverage should be significantly {{tq|national or international}}. We have plenty of sourcing from the area in California from which the person comes. But we have exactly one source (and I've looked carefully at each of them) that focuses on the individual person (as opposed to mentioning her among all the other students at the White House) and is national-level coverage: the one from ABC news: http://abcnews.go.com/US/california-girl-12-creates-tools-technology-visually-impaired/story?id=41571866. GNG says of such major coverage that {{tq|multiple sources are generally expected.}} Do we have enough California sources to say that, despite "generally", we can here justify a keep based on GNG? It's a close call, but particularly in the context of failing so many SNG criteria, I think not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:NACADEMIC||WP:GNG||WP:ANYBIO||WP:BASIC||WP:DIVERSE)

Comment: As pointed out above,  is not relevant because there are multiple events here.  With respect to Lemongirl, I think she's a little harsh on some of the sources; while many of them are not up to snuff for GNG purposes, I am happy that http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/article/zz/20150916/NEWS/150915916, http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/article/zz/20150916/NEWS/150915916 and http://www.kwbg.com/news-rss/california-girl-12-creates-tools-and-technology-for-the-visually-impaired/ are sufficiently weighty to push her past the GNG - while some of the sources are indeed from the same geographic area I don't think that such sources should be discounted when they are from otherwise sound and reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Her age is irrelevant and any invocations of  are (willfully?) misunderstanding what that essay says. As
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Fail ,  and . After reviewing the article and sources I agree with the solid, '''policy based''' analysis of
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BASIC||WP:NOT)

Comment: Because this is the sort of AfD that gets bogged down in opinions, interpretations of policy and guidelines, SPIs and possible meatpuppetry or off-Wiki canvassing, it becomes confusing to sort through various posts. Often editors will resort to shorthand when addressing the opinions of others. I do this myself, often. However, please keep in mind that simply stating that a certain number of !votes are policy-based implies that contrary !votes are ''not'' policy-based. Likewise, when stating " is not a valid reason to keep" without addressing the specific editor who may have !voted in such a way, paints all those who voted keep in this AfD of doing so contrary to . Let's remember to be specific and address actual editors when applicable. Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: per Tryptofish and Lemongirl's analysis of the sources. Human interest articles in a local area generally aren't too useful for determining notability, especially the lasting significance required by  when we note that almost all of this coverage is related to the app creation and subsequent trip to the White House
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: WP:BLP1E is not at all relevant because we have multiple events and achievements; the subject is the focus of attention and she is not a low-profile person, having won multiple public awards.  Instead, the subject passes  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO||WP:BASIC)

Comment: I have given up trying to evaluate consensus here now that this is a huge puddle of ideas. I'd advise for the closer to address the points made ''very carefully''. Now that I've added this 'keep', the count is 13–13; this !vote makes this |AfD even more brain-racking. In short my analysis is that this article passes |GNG, |1E, |most notability standards, and |BLP1E
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD||WP:GNG||WP:1E||WP:N||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: No question that she passes  and attempts to carve out a  exception for a young person that has generated significant, independent coverage for over a year for multiple events is baffling
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: In that case in regards to this article being in the DYK queue and by the looks of the above arguments, could this not be |snowballed? Comment taken back
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)