Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hari Bhimaraju
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
— User:Tryptofish, 20:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:NACADEMIC||WP:GNG||WP:ANYBIO||WP:BASIC||WP:DIVERSE (Wikipedia:Notability)