Deletion of Matthew Tye

Comment: Clearly fails on all rof criteria that are applied on these pages. Being a local celebrity in Birmingham as a teenager and being involved in what the Oxford police describe as a private incident in the presence of an archbishop, but in which the archbishop was not himself involved, do not yet make for notability on general grounds. Special:Contributions/77.98.27.57|77.98.27.57 has done 26 out of his 32 edits on the subject of Matthew Tye? Would he care to tell us if he has any relationship to the subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: There is no doubt that the subject fails  so keeping the article depends on finding some other criterion to judge the subject as notable. The information about his mother, schooling and community work is commendable but not relevant for , and the academic achievements fail . Being insulted at a dinner where an archbishop is present is trivia unless |secondary sources have an analysis that the "national religious controversy" is somehow significant. Likewise, co-founding VAN-UK is only significant if sources verify the significance. That leaves the awards: "youngest recipient of a Winston Churchill Travelling Fellowship" and the "Max Cary Memorial Award for a photographic project" and the "AXA Doctoral Research Fellowship". There is no verification that these awards are sufficiently |notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG||WP:PROF||WP:SECONDARY||WP:GNG)

Comment: As pointed-out in various entries above, the subject clearly made significant achievements as an undergrad, probably much more than average. I don't see that there's any dispute about this and I'm sure the commentators here would see this as quite commendable. However, this does not permit us to side-step the salient question: whether any/all of these achievements clear the notability hurdle as codified by , in particular #3. (The religious controversy appears to be .) I concur with others above that they do not. Specifically, in my view, the strongest claim would be the fellowship. If this fellowship were independently notable, i.e. having its own well-established WP page, the case for the subject here might be much stronger (though not necessarily a slam-dunk, see below). I do not dispute that there is some level of prestige attached to this award, but it is unclear how it would be distinguished from numerous other prestigious awards. One of the commentators above wants to give increased weight to the fact that the subject was awarded this fellowship before he was formally eligible (according to fellowship by-laws), but this does not change the status of the award itself. Even if the fellowship were notable, his award would not necessarily qualify him. In particular, consensus holds that undergrad or early-in-career awards alone do not qualify one because they are not necessarily given for achievements that are "notable enough" for WP notability. One needs only to check, for example, the William_Lowell_Putnam_Mathematical_Competition#Putnam_Fellows|list of Putnam Fellows (an award that is undoubtedly much more prestigious than the RSA award) to see that ''most'' of the recipients do not have their own WP page. That said, it is quite possible that the subject will be notable in the future, but  says his page will have to wait until then. Respectfully
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BLP1E||WP:CRYSTAL)