Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Cairo - Wikipedia - Recent changes [en]

*::::I think I meant to say "strike" and have no idea why I said "blank"; thanks for asking my actual question. [[User:Sesquilinear|Sesquilinear]] ([[User talk:Sesquilinear|talk]]) 23:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

*::::I think I meant to say "strike" and have no idea why I said "blank"; thanks for asking my actual question. [[User:Sesquilinear|Sesquilinear]] ([[User talk:Sesquilinear|talk]]) 23:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

*'''Weak keep''' - I found an article from [[Der Standard]] and added it to the references - it doesn't have much that wasn't in the El País article but shows coverage in another source. I share Mscuthbert's sense that people with relevant expertise seem to consider her paper important or impressive, but I'm surprised there isn't more news coverage. --[[User:Opus 113|Opus 113]] ([[User talk:Opus 113|talk]]) 17:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

*'''Weak keep''' - I found an article from [[Der Standard]] and added it to the references - it doesn't have much that wasn't in the El País article but shows coverage in another source. I share Mscuthbert's sense that people with relevant expertise seem to consider her paper important or impressive, but I'm surprised there isn't more news coverage. --[[User:Opus 113|Opus 113]] ([[User talk:Opus 113|talk]]) 17:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

*:To (preemptively) clarify: while I do agree with the comments that Tao's and other experts' opinions have some relevance, my rationale for my vote here is similar to Hannes Röst's below, i.e. that with the coverage from Der Standard (and some of the other sources that Maddy from Celeste found), I think Cairo just passes GNG at this point. [[User:Opus 113|Opus 113]] ([[User talk:Opus 113|talk]]) 13:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

*<s>'''Delete'''.</s> Fails [[WP:PROF]]. Whenever someone out of nowhere allegedly proves a "new theorem", or gives a new proof of an old theorem, there is often breathless coverage in yellow media. This cannot be the criterion for scientific notability on Wikipedia. It might be good enough for influencers and whatnot, but scientific advance is determined by peer review and other institutional kinds of notoriety (awards, etc). Biases of yellow media towards stories of discovering the next Ramanujan or whatnot are legion. [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 19:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

*<s>'''Delete'''.</s> Fails [[WP:PROF]]. Whenever someone out of nowhere allegedly proves a "new theorem", or gives a new proof of an old theorem, there is often breathless coverage in yellow media. This cannot be the criterion for scientific notability on Wikipedia. It might be good enough for influencers and whatnot, but scientific advance is determined by peer review and other institutional kinds of notoriety (awards, etc). Biases of yellow media towards stories of discovering the next Ramanujan or whatnot are legion. [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 19:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

*:In this context, I trust the opinions of Terry Tao [https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/114003793236630744] and Gil Kalai [https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2025/04/04/hong-wang-and-joshua-zahls-solution-for-kakeyas-problem-in-three-dimensions-reflections-and-links/] on what is a significant advance much more than I trust El País. Unfortunately, those links do not count towards any notability criterion here. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 23:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

*:In this context, I trust the opinions of Terry Tao [https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/114003793236630744] and Gil Kalai [https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2025/04/04/hong-wang-and-joshua-zahls-solution-for-kakeyas-problem-in-three-dimensions-reflections-and-links/] on what is a significant advance much more than I trust El País. Unfortunately, those links do not count towards any notability criterion here. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 23:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)