Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinay Deolalikar

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aksi great (talk | contribs) at 23:41, 10 August 2010 (addendum). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Vinay Deolalikar

Vinay Deolalikar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating this substantially on behalf of 75.62.4.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who cannot start an AfD himself, but posted on the article talk page as follows:

I'd like to propose an AfD for this article (as an unregistered user I can't start one myself). It is way premature. Obviously if the proof checks out the article will be necessary. Otherwise it will be an embarassment to the subject, who didn't seek any sort of publicity (he circulated the proof privately to some other researchers for comment, but word got out). At least one real expert has bet long odds against the proof being right.
75.62.4.94 (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

While I myself suspect Deolalikar may be notable due to earlier published mathematical work, the current article is focused on one proof that has gotten a large amount of attention but may not be correct. If it is correct, Deolalikar will be as notable as Grigori Perelman; until then, this proposed proof does not establish notability. Gavia immer (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are a few sources that could be considered notable: [1], [2], however, I think the problem is due to WP:NTEMP. Also withdrawing DYK nomination. SPat talk 16:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as afd proposer. Deolilikar has a few research publications but as far as I can tell, not enough for notability per WP:PROF. WP:PROF may not apply anyway, since he's not an academic (he works at a computer company). If the proof attempt has not been withdrawn or refuted within one week (by the time the afd closes) it may be worth mentioning in the P vs NP article, but the biography is premature either way. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In WP:PROF it says "an academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement", and that in my opinion applies to someone who works as a principal scientist at a research lab. Favonian (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I agree that WP:PROF should agree to an industrial researcher in general (sure, those guys publish papers, but they are hired in part to basically be internal consultants for technical problems that arise in the company's business). Either way, it seems to me that he fails all the WP:PROF criteria. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    • He is a notable computer scientist and mathematician before this. Just because people have still not written about those papers till now does not mean we should delete the article
    • The P/NP proof has gotten a lot of publicity from the computer science world. Thousands of tweets and blog posts and a mention that is a very serious attempt (if not the most serious till now) towards answering the question.
    • Currently this Wikipedia article ranks in the top 5 google hits for Vinay Deolalikar. Which means this page must be getting thousands of hits and thus we should not waste the chance to expand this article. It is much harder to start an article on your own for random people than expand one. And we already seem to agree that he is notable enough in the first place to deserve the article. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to see documentation of Aksi's claim that Deolilikar is a notable computer scientist or mathematician before this, by Wikipedia's standards of notability, otherwise I don't believe it. With no disrespect intended to Deolilikar, he has a PhD in the subject and a few research publications in middle-tier(?) journals. He has no books published. He has no academic post. He has not supervised any well-known students. He has not received any significant awards or recognition. His past research results while legitimate and worthwhile don't appear major (obviously that will change in the unlikely event that the P=NP proof is valid). As it stands, plenty of graduate students have more substantial research track records than his, so I don't see the evidence of notibility. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not only that, but HP Labs is a research institution and his position as "principal research scientist" does not indicate a very prominent or senior level of attainment there. Plenty of people get that title just by being there more than several years. He hasn't won any societal or industrial awards either (of which there are plenty). If I had to map his position to that at a research university, I would put him as a postdoc or research associate, or more generously a tenure-track assistant prof. Certainly not a full professor, which in general is what we require here. 69.86.106.215 (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • In addition, people keep mentioning the "serious attempt" claim, but they should understand this is a bit of jargon. "Serious attempt" does not mean it is a particularly good one. It just means this is an actual piece of academic research, not crap from some crank. It certainly does not mean this is amongst the better ones in recent years. Most researchers would circulate their proof attempts a lot more privately than the subject has done here. And there are plenty of them. It usually doesn't leak out and cause Internet fervor though. 69.86.106.215 (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You may be right. But the reason I created this article was precisely because of the 'internet fervor' it has generated and because a lot of people may be wanting to read a wikipedia entry on the guy to know what the deal is. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you implying that he leaked it himself? What's your source for that?
            • I don't think there's any controversy, he wrote his paper and emailed it to various researchers in the field for comment, and one of blogged about it. I think what 69.* was getting at is that emailing something to a bunch of strangers out of the blue is not very private. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It certainly shouldn't be deleted. Even if the proof doesn't pan out, the most Wikipedia should do with this not-yet-24-hour-old article is to merge it with P versus NP problem as having been arguably the most promising approach one of the more promising directions of the past four decades. Hopefully by the time the status of the proof has been settled a sketch of the proof itself including what makes it novel will have been added to the article on Deolalikar. (As an aside, Scott Aaronson's generous offer is not a bet but a prize supplement, in fact his so-called "long odds" aren't even a standard real. While some have taken Scott's offer as a cynical gesture one could by that logic say the same of the Clay Institute, unless Scott limits his offer to Deolalikar which would then be quite a different matter.) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merging to P versus NP problem counts as deletion as far as I'm concerned. I'd be ok with mentioning the proof attempt in that article, if one week passes (starting from the announcement) and it hasn't been withdrawn or refuted. There is more discussion taking place at Talk:P versus NP problem. I'm not an OR-removal zealot when it comes to math articles but I think whether this proof attempt contains interesting novelties is yet to be determined. Wikipedia should certainly not go around describing such novelties until that determination has taken place. Scott's offer certainly is a bet and not a "prize supplement" since unlike the Clay Institute he has not offered the $200k to all comers, but only to this proof. It's a fairly safe assumption that he would not have directed such an offer at a purported proof by a recognized expert, or one which really wrestled with the known obstacles against P vs NP proofs, instead of handwaving them. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Oops, we had an edit conflict: I was adding a caveat making the same point you did about other proofs when you posted, then I hit another edit conflict with the below. Lot of traffic!) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge - Goodness, third edit conflict I've run into. Anyway, not notable enough to meet requirements. Maybe once the proof is substantiated? Additionally, I'd like to point out a few things in response to Aksi's argument. Do you have sources proving notability? Regarding your second point (about the blog posts and tweets) please read WP:UNRS. Regarding your third point, please see WP:POPULARPAGE. Sorry to throw policies at you like this, but the arguments you make above are not strong enough to hold up. The first might be, if you had sources to back it up. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 17:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- give the article time to mature rather than killing it before it has time to settle down. Vinay is still trending upwards in the news so the article is likely to get more readers and contributors. See Trends. It is also (to the best of my knowledge) one of the best places to find informed opinions about the likely validity of the proof, and more likely than many other places to continue to be up-to-date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanf (talk • contribs) 18:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not valid reasoning: 1) our whole approach to notability is supposedly that we write an article after notability is established, not before. WP is not Google Trends and those wanting Google Trends know where to find it. We are constantly beating back self-promotion by garage bands who claim to be "trending upwards" or "about to make it" (I'm not saying this is a self-promotion article of course). 2) The amount of press attention is irrelevant unless the proof turns out to be correct. If the proof is deemed incorrect (which I consider more likely) then the article should be deleted to avoid embarrassing the subject even if there has been considerable press attention, per WP:BLP1E. The latter is the main reason I'm supporting deletion now, if that matters. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject currently does not pass WP:PROF. Citability in GoogleScholar[3] is fairly skimpy, particularly for a computer scientist; with h-index of about 8. Nothing else of significance in the record to indicate passing WP:PROF (e.g. prestigious academic awards, journal editorships, etc). The PvsNP claim, as of this moment, certainly qualifies under WP:NOT#NEWS (and, in this case, perhaps under WP:BLP1E), and does not justify having a biographical article at this point. It may be appropriate to mention something about the purported proof in P versus NP problem in the meantime, but having a bio article now is definitely an overreach. Nsk92 (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, as stated by AnonMoos. --Petter (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep, per AnonMoos. This page is already fairly well-written, and as it continues to evolve, it will be a good landing place for people (such as myself) who are just getting into the subject over the next few days. Cue the WP:NOT pettifogging, but I say leave it for now: if the proof is wrong, we can delete the page. Angio (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You really have it backwards. We are not supposed to be crystallballing here. If the proof holds up, then a bio article about the proof's author will become acceptable and appropriate. For now it is not. As far as I can tell, most of the noise has been in the blogosphere, with a small number of sources that might pass WP:RS. WP:NOT is certainly relevant here - we are not supposed to serve as a significant venue for propagating a particular sensationalized claim. A mention of the claimed proof in P versus NP problem is as much as is appropriate now, not a bio article. Nsk92 (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is a serious researcher, but not nearly notable enough per WP:PROF, even if the current claim is taken into account (which it should not). The event on which notability purports to be based has not even reached the level where WP:BLP1E or 109 papers need to be invoked. In short, its not even close, the article needs to be deleted. Per Nsk92, notability needs to be established first -- we don't just throw up articles on the wall to see what sticks. Blowfish (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a classic WP:CRYSTAL/WP:NOTNEWS case. Nsk92 lays it out perfectly. Again "let's keep the article until it's notable" is against the guidelines. Ryan Norton 20:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Keep No need to rush the delete. This proof attempt has generated a huge amount of attention. The page can document this attempt, and provide a landing spot for the curious.Bestchai (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re the "provisional keep"s: nobody is trying to "rush the delete", which means proposing speedy deletion. Under the afd process the article will stay up for a week while the afd progresses. That is not a "rush". I believe it likely that by the end of the week the proof will have been found incorrect, invalidating the "provisional keep" rationales by the time of the afd closure. Either way, the status of the proof attempt at closure time should be taken into account when closing. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The manuscript is over a hundred pages long, and relies on advanced connections between multiple areas of mathematics. I doubt that there will be a unanimous decision by the complexity community in a week's time.Bestchai (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There will not be a unanimous decision in favor of the proof in a week. There could very well be a decision against it in a week, i.e. if somebody finds a mistake on (say) page 74 that can't be repaired. That is what I see as most likely to happen. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have to bear in mind that claims of proof to the biggest problems happen periodically, even ones made by serious people. And most of these claims are wrong. In recent years, the Riemann Hypothesis has been claimed solved by Louis de Branges de Bourcia, by Xian-Jin Li, and maybe others -- serious mathematicians, but their work didn't withstand scrutiny. So this isn't a case where we should presume that the proof will be accepted, because simply going by past experience, it won't. Putting this page up doesn't do the subject any favours, either. There is a reason why the paper has been circulated quietly -- publicity is at best unhelpful. And if the proof turns out to be false, then this page will have contributed to harming the reputation of a researcher acting in good faith and who was trying to quietly get his work reviewed. Under BLP we aren't supposed to invade this person's privacy until there is a good reason to do so, and right now there certainly isn't. Blowfish (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is a comment I disagree more with on this page, then it is this one. Of course wrong claims are made again and again. But how many times does one claim gain fame and excitement (and initial respect) as much as this one has? And I don't know what point you tried to make by citing Xian-Jin Li and Louis de Branges de Bourcia as both of them have wikipedia articles! And at least in Xian-Jin Li's case, the incorrect proof is a quarter of the article. And bringing BLP into the debate is quite silly. I do not see how a mention of the proof which has been called a serious attempt by Lipton and Cook would end up harming his reputation as a researcher. Aksi_great (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not surprised you disagree. Basically by creating this article, you have most likely done this man harm. It's natural for you not to want to admit this. There's a good chance (just going by history) that this proof is going to fail, and if the mistake is a simple oversight (which can happen even to the best researchers in far shorter papers), Deolalikar could well end up with egg on his face. Unlike some other researchers who have made big mistakes that end up in the press somehow and who can presumably find comfort in established reputations and long publication records (besides de Branges, Martin Dunwoody comes to mind), this will be hanging over his head for a long time. I know if I were him, I would be pretty upset with you. As Blowfish says, publicity is something that is not helpful to the peer review process. The greater the publicity and thus the greater a target Deolalikar becomes, the greater the risk that people are going to go out of their way to bash him. If it turns out to be an elementary mistake, then it's not going to be the usual "hey, you made this mistake. But nice try!"...it's going to be something like "hey everyone, look at this guy...doesn't he even understand the basics of [elementary topic]??" Things can easily turn ugly. You say that the amount of attention this has gathered somehow trumps any BLP concerns...well, that's exactly why the BLP policy was implemented: to trump this kind of recentism publicity. Note that we don't have an article on Brian Peppers, despite the tons of people that claimed somehow the publicity and people's right to know somehow trumped concerns of harm to the subject. --69.86.106.215 (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's customary when circulating a draft to label it as such on the draft itself, typically with the addition of "Please do not circulate further." Had Deolaliker done so it would be reasonable to view Baker as some sort of wikileaker. However the paper was circulated as a complete and polished paper with no restrictions on its further circulation. By omitting this elementary precaution Deolaliker has effectively invited comment from all, which is what he's now getting. If this was not what he wanted then the omission was in hindsight most unfortunate. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the accolade, it's heartwarming. I'm not really sure that there's any fame and excitement surrounding this claim just yet, but if you want to compare it to previous attempts, you'll note that Li's Riemann claim was slash-dotted as well (it's really not that high a bar to clear) and de Bourcia's claim was reported by the BBC. Your next argument is WP:OTHERSTUFF; and for the record, Li's page almost certainly shouldn't be there. As for the matter of reputation, it may be unfair, but if the claim doesn't hold up then there is some harm to reputation. There's no reason to compound matters by prematurely splattering this man's name on wikipedia, and yes it's exactly that reason that we have BLP, which this article violates in several places. Blowfish (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
        • Can you point out the many violations of BLP for me? Except for the one-event part and I claim that the event has been big enough to warrant an article. As far as the "prematurely splattering" allegation goes, it was not on Wikipedia that it first happened. His name was "splattered" all over internet yesterday, and Wikipedia being a major reference source obviously has an article from him. You make it sound as if Wikipedia got the article first and now is on some mission to tarnish Vinay's reputation. - Aksi_great (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can you read WP:PROF? That's the most relevant section for an academic such as this subject, and it makes it quite clear why a page isn't appropriate. I would cite WP:BLP1E] or WP:109PAPERS, except that so far, this is a non-event that hasn't even been in one paper of record. That's what I mean when I say that this fails BLP -- it fails spectacularly, and in every possible sense. Blowfish (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aksi, I actually thought of the incident with Li (though I didn't remember his name) and the Riemann hypothesis during this discussion. I hadn't noticed before that Li is now the subject of a biography. I'd appreciate it if you (or someone else) could open an AfD for Li's biography and I will support its deletion. I do believe that de Branges' purported proof of RH has indeed harmed his reputation, as did some other mistaken proofs that he announced earlier in his career. That is described in the biography of him. The de Branges biography is problematic in many ways, though probably not harming him much, since he's been around for a long time and is apparently something of an attention seeker, unlike Deolalikar (so far) or Li. I've heard that when de Branges proof of the Bieberbach conjecture was finally accepted, a number of mathematicians were actually angry--they expected it to be wrong because earlier claimed results of his had been wrong. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep My vote is assuming that the information located at [4] is correct. It states that: "confirmations [of the P != NP proof] began arriving 8th August early morning" from "several leading researchers in various areas". If the proof has indeed been confirmed by several leading researchers (and those researchers can be identified), this article should stay. fintler (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fintler, the proof hasn't been confirmed (validated) by anyone. I think the "confirmation" that you cite just means people wrote back saying "I got your paper and will look at it". Several people have found apparent problems in the proof (see commenters in Lipton's and Aaronson's blogs) though nobody yet has come out and said it's wrong. It's really impossible to validate a complex proof like this in just one day. The Clay prize has a two year waiting period. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, if that's the case then I retract my keep and vote No Opinion. I'm solely basing my choice on the wording from that link. It makes sense that confirmation doesn't mean validation, especially since it's 102 pages long. fintler (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I propose leaving the article up for one month and re-evaluating it then. It isn't as though we don't have the space for it, and it is a well documented current event -- in any case, even if the proof is disproved, the attempt may be newsworthy enough for an article. It would be exceedingly bureaucratic of us to delete this page before the end of one month to let the news and evaluations play out, and god knows there's certainly enough obstructive bureaucracy around here as is. The article was created in good faith on a broadly discussed person and topic, an article will be valid upon acceptance of the proof, an article on the proof's author may be valid even if the proof is rejected depending on circumstances, and no harm is done leaving the article up on "probation" until events play out. TeamZissou (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • .... if it's newsworthy enough for an article, we'll get clearly noteworthy secondary sources. So far we don't have that. That the article was written in good faith is irrelevant; that's necessary, but not sufficient, to keep. JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not proven, and even the kerfuffle over whether it's a valid proof hasn't yet proven notable. No noteworthy sources have covered this yet. _If_ it is accepted by the mathematics community, even then, coverage should be in the P!=P article. JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Multiple reliable third party sources about him and his purported proof. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Regardless of whether this result is accepted, I think the prior results are of minor significance. I don't really have a high bar for how important a researcher's work has to be for them to have a biographical article, and I don't believe we have notability guidelines for this. In any case the section on his P != NP result needs to be trimmed, as right now the article is serving as nothing but a WP:COATRACK for this result. I would say it deserves no more than one paragraph, in light of the extensive press coverage. Dcoetzee 02:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient notability at present. If the proof is accepted by the scientific community that will change. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - I found this webpage (the article, not the discussion webpage) quite interesting. Thanks to the guys who wrote it. Once again, Wikipedia was the best place to get the best informations. That's too bad that some people want to delete this webpage. As a mathematician, I know it happens quite often that some preprints have some flaws (and sometimes, some flaws which are impossible to correct), there is nothing infamous about this. Errors are a part of evolutions of ideas, and there is not a single famous scientist who did no mistake (and even published/refereed mistakes !). It would be strange to make some censure on this article just because some ayatollah here think the author could be ashamed of such an "advertising". The preprint is publicly available on Deolalikar's webpage , and indeed contains interesting ideas (I'm not expert in complexity classes, so I wont be a good referee for this article but the whole approach really makes sense). And it is good that some people can join their effort in this wikipedia page to say more about the author and the proof, EVEN if the proof is not working finally. Just compare with physics, where you'll find hundreds of wrong/incomplete theories (with a wikipedia webpage on it). Unfortunately, it is more seldom to communicate on flaws in mathematics, but that's sad, because it contributes to spread the idea that mathematics are good/correct from A to Z, which is totally wrong. From a history of science point of view, from a mathematical ideas point of view, for a better understanding of computer science in progress, all such webpages are USEFUL. For sure, we'll know more in few days, but this does not make the article, as it is today, less interesting. I hope that more and more people could bring some precision/links, allowing any student to understand the approach, the challenge, etc. We all prefer to have good information in an usual location (wikipedia) rather than spending hours in reading blogs because some ayatollah decided not to let this information on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.224.52.136 (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The person will be notable even if proof is shown to be incorrect. No proposed proof for this problem has generated such interest, and so quickly, from famous people in the relevant fields so far. Those who suggest quick deletion only show their ignorance and misunderstanding of what is important. A solution to such important problem can be very interesting scientifically, with a new interesting approach and new interesting techniques, even if incorrect. All those with a quick finger on the delete button: Please be patient! Meanwhile this article can provide updated reliable status on this solution to many avid Wikipedia users (like me) as the other Wikipedia articles do! 207.180.160.126 (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The preceding 2 votes/points have been copied by me from the talk page of the article where they were mistakenly left. It was my decision to write the word keep in front of their messages as that is what they were obviously trying to tell. - Aksi_great (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple voting is not allowed. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Did you even care to read what I have written? These are not my 'votes'. I merely copied them over from the talk page of the article because the anons had left the comments there instead of here where they belong. Am reverting your deletion of the votes. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since AfDs are not votes anyway, I don't see how you are justified in deleting commentary, though I personally do not support or oppose said commentary. — flamingspinach | (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to be an article about the proof attempt, rather than about the individual. This person doesn't seem to be notable enough to merit a biography due to WP:BLP concerns, but the proof itself may deserve an article. Oren0 (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete. I don't envy the admin who'll have to wade through all this and weed out all the non-pertinent arguments (both pro and con) that have nothing to do with the question of notability. The only event that for the moment is asserted to establish notability is the informal circulation of a mathematical proof. It may have generated "thousands of tweets" (really, the epitome of ephemeral noise), but despite the best efforts of many participants to the discussion here, the whole article is still sourced to blogs and such and the only WP:RS deal with side issues. I am also surprised to see how many editors (from both sides) that hardly ever have participated in academics AfDs are suddenly coming here, as well as the number of anonymous IPs that, despite minimal edit histories, seem to know AfD and its arcane procedures and arguments quite well. In any case, the regulars of these kind of discussions (Xxanthippe, Nsk92, and others) have it completely right. There is absolutely no notability here and there is currently no way to predict whether the proof is going to be correct or not. This article violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL and does not meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO or any other guideline under WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, maybe merge. The effort is notable, the paper is interesting, the page looks fine. I'd wait to see how this turns out before wiping out a page that then needs to be rewritten. I can't see how the page could in any way be an "embarassment to the subject" (original rfd reason). --Sigmundur (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And merge. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. This seems to be an up-and-coming researcher, but an attempt at solving an important problem is not enough to establish notability. The subject's most widely cited article has only 39 citations, total citations add up to 175 (with probably some false positives), and the h-index is a low 8.--Eric Yurken (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's say it turns out the proof is correct. In that case, he'll certainly be worthy of an article about him. And there will be plenty of time to write it at that time. So what that the article doesn't get written for another few weeks or months? We are an encyclopedia. We are not a newspaper. We are not the TV news. Getting there first doesn't matter. Getting it right does. This is a classic case of WP:RECENT -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most likely the proof will turn out to be flawed. If it does then a few days or week of blog coverage will not b4 enough to establish notability. And his previous research does not establish notability on its own. MathHisSci (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I agree that this article is currently highly dubious for WP:BIO notability, mainstream press articles are beginning to appear. For example, a New Scientist story was published today. I would be surprised if there was not enough coverage within the next couple of days to gain notability. Yes, this is a crystal ball argument, but is there really any harm waiting a few days? Adacore (t·c) 16:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also PC World, NDTV India (one of the biggest news channels of India) and AOL News - Aksi_great (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Deolalikar appears to have removed the paper (revised version) and its description from his web site.[5] The pdf link to the old version still works, maybe by accident. I haven't heard anything yet about whether he is withdrawing the claim, putting up a new version, or what. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which could mean either that the proof is unfixable, as some have alleged, or that Deolalikar is working quietly to fix it. What is clear, is that he doesn't want this publicity right now. Blowfish (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • From what can you conclude that he doesn't want publicity? Unless you've talked to him. And even if he doesn't, the cat is out of the bag right now. He's already got a lot of publicity, and a Wikipedia article makes no difference. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • When his webpage did contain mention of the paper, he said it had been leaked to the web without his knowledge. Now any mention of it is gone. As for the cat being out of the bag, despite what twitter users may think, there really has been very little coverage of this whole story. It's still a non-event. Blowfish (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Re Aksi: "And even if he doesn't, the cat is out of the bag right now. He's already got a lot of publicity, and a Wikipedia article makes no difference"-- sorry, but that is the precise description of a BLP1E situation. It says "delete". As for whether Deolalikar wants publicity: people outside of publicity-seeking professions (like media or politics) should generally be presumed to not want publicity. So absent info to the contrary we should treat this biography as unwanted by the subject. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm getting tired of you quoting BLP1E all over the place. Now this is from BLP1E - "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate.". Is the event significant? Yes. With you latest comment even you seem to agree with that now. Is Vinay's role in it substantial? Yes. There is no doubting that. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • If the proof is recognized as correct and the guy gets the $1 million Clay prize, that would be a significant event under BLP1E and also establish personal notability per WP:PROF. An unsuccessful proof is not significant even if it gets press mentions. Significant is a much higher standard than "notable". Even if significance is established (e.g. the failed proof has good ideas that influence other people's work) that by itself still doesn't establish the personal notability necessary for a biography, which needs separate documentation (WP:BIO, WP:PROF). We'd instead write about the influence in the relevant math articles. FWIW, the P=NP article links to a page by Gerhard Woeginger listing dozens of unsuccessful P vs NP proofs, most of them not even notable. Really, you're on the wrong track: WP should be writing fewer biographies of living people, not more. Do you mind if I ask if you know Deolalikar? If you do, it would be good if you could ask him what he thinks of all this. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He seems trivially notable under WP:BIO. There are multiple traditional news articles, as has been pointed out, and even if the proof is flawed it is generally acknowledged that much of the work in it is good and will contribute to other results in the field. (For one example of this see issue #4 here. Personman (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no biographical news articles or profiles as far as I can tell. There are a few random press mentions of the proposed P/NP proof. I do begin to believe that the proposed proof has become notable enough to warrant mention in Wikipedia (in the P/NP article, say), but that by itself doesn't justify writing a biography of the author. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From BLP1E - "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate." Which part of this statement do you think does not apply here? - Aksi_great (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It applies in full, including the words if and may. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The event will have no lasting significance unless the proof holds up. Not only are you missapplying BLP1e, you're ignoring WP:RECENT. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a news service. Blowfish (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not I but you who is ignoring what is written in WP:RECENT. Let me see if I can educate you.
  • Firstly, "Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well — up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer."
  • Also, "A news spike is a sudden mass interest in any current event, whereupon Wikipedians create and update articles on it, even if some readers later feel that the topic was not historically significant in any way. The result might be a well-written and well-documented neutral-point-of-view article on a topic that might hardly be remembered a month later (see Jennifer Wilbanks and the article's deletion debate). Still, these articles are valuable for future historical research."
  • "But in many cases, such content is a valuable preliminary stage in presenting information. Any encyclopedia goes through rough drafts; new Wikipedia articles are immediately published in what might be considered draft form: They can be — and are — improved in real time"
  • "Collaborative editing on Wikipedia has resulted in a massive encyclopedia of comprehensive and well-balanced articles on the many current events of the mid-to-late 2000s. This record will be valuable to those in the future who seek to understand the history of this time period"
  • "What might seem at the time to be an excessive amount of information on recent topics actually serve the purpose of drawing in new readers — and among them, potential new Wikipedians"
All these things are applicable in the current case. In face WP:RECENT says exactly why we should keep this article instead of deleting it. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to comment on why you cherry picked statements out of the guideline to make it seem like the policy is an uncritical endorsement of all and any recent event coverage? The most relevant part is the ten year test: "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?" And unless the proof holds up, or contributes to another proof, the answer is no. Hence your creation of the page was far far premature. Blowfish (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I pointed out the statements because you keep on saying WP:RECENT as if the essay (it is not even a guideline or a policy) is as uncritical endorsement of not including all and any recent event coverage. As for the 10 year test, see my comment below. - Aksi_great (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More mentions of the proof - Livemint(another popular news network in India) and Nature. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all these sources say nearly the same thing (to the point of mind-numbing-ness) - here's someone who might have solved XXX problem and be eligable for a 1mil reward, then the usual copy-paste background. It seems like a classic case of WP:109PAPERS, in particular the last paragraph. Ryan Norton 20:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, the Nature article isn't just another rehash of various blog posts -- they actually talked to Lipton (but failed to reach Deolalikar). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.170.7 (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why you shouldn't link them from Vinay's article. See, the issue is this - we can all quote Wikipedia's million WP: abbreviations and prove our own points, like I just did with WP:RECENT in my previous comment. In the end, even if this is a recent event, it does not make it any less significant. Wikipedia is not a news organization but it is our job to have encyclopedic entries on significant events and people. And this is a significant event, probably the most significant event in recent times when it comes to solving the P=NP problem, even if it may turn out to be a wrong proof. What makes me say this? - blog posts by the most notable computer scientists, news articles and also the surge in activity on pages related to this event. Whether it will be historically significant? 100 years from now? I don't know. But as WP:RECENT says, this is one of the beautiful things about Wikipedia = "This record will be valuable to those in the future who seek to understand the history of this time period". - Aksi_great (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This `historical record' argument is getting silly. It's only something you can look to if the even is of clear significance -- think hurricane Katrina. A thousand twitter updates do not make this even close to being significant. Even if there were wide-spread coverage in major news sources, which there is not, you would still have some hurdles to clear to demonstrate significance, per 109Papers. As it is, NDTV seems like pretty much the only relevant major news report. Why don't you take the advice in WP:RECENT and use wikinews, which is intended for this sort of thing (or would be if this even really were all that significant). Blowfish (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic we wouldn't be keeping articles for all the other tropical storms and cyclones around the world. They will definitely not be historically significant as you put it. But think about someone who is researching the history of P=NP proofs. Would this then not be historically significant in that context? Is this P=NP proof not the one that has received the most news coverage? The only way out of this argument I can see is to create an article on all notable P=NP proofs and then merge all information from this article to a section on that article. But right now there is no article like that and there is not even consensus about having a section on notable proofs on the P=NP talk page. - Aksi_great (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that only makes sense if we can demonstrate that there's something notable in the history of P=NP proof attempts. I think the best summary of the status of the P=NP problem was provided by Lance Fortnow, with the comment "Still open." Until that changes, the historiography of the P=NP problem is a niche within a niche within a niche. And though I applaud anyone with esoteric interests, since I myself have my own, I don't think that the history of P=NP problem attempts is significant enough to be an article here. As to the status of a biography page for Deolalikar, he hasn't published enough papers with impact to qualify for a bio yet. Anything else is crystal balling. Blowfish (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, why would the history of attempts to solve a Clay Math problem be not important enough to have a Wikipedia article? - Aksi_great (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main resource for the history of failed P vs NP proof attempts is Woeginger's page[6] and our P vs NP article already links to it. As for historiography of the problem, Sipser and Fortnow have written excellent survey articles that we also link to, again primarily about the development of the mathematical ideas, which is the important stuff. I simply don't understand Aksi_great's obsession with the idea that we should be writing a biography of one particular author of such a proof (assuming it fails). Mathematics is about ideas, not about personalities. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Woeginger has a page or not does not make any difference to me. That is why Wikipedia is not a linkfarm but a collection of articles. If someone comes to Wikipedia for a history of notable proofs, he expects to find an article not a link to some external website which may disappear any day. Also, Mathematics may be about ideas, but this is Wikipedia not Mathematics. And as far as obsession goes, I could say the same about obsession not to cover this event on Wikipedia. It almost seems as if you have some vested interest against covering it. As I have already said, BLP1E does say that if the event is notable and a person plays an important role, then it is ok to have a biography page on that person. - Aksi_great (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to question anyone's motives. I'm convinced that all of the people in the comments above are acting in good faith, though obviously I disagree strenuously with some of them. Regarding notable proofs, I really don't think there have been any. There have been some notable steps toward discovering what wont work, relativization, etc. But no purported proofs have met a category that could be considered noteworthy. Absent a confirmed proof, all we have is the impact of Deolalikar's publications, which isn't nearly at a level yet where he can be considered noteowrthy enough for a bio. Blowfish (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To put it another way; in this case apparently this subject is only notable for this one proof that is decribed over and over and over and over again in sources as "a proposal that might be the solution to" or similar. There is very little coverage about what the subject (carefully worded to not damage the subject's reputation) did besides this; most of the actual information itself is already in another article, and outside of that this would basically be a bio of an otherwise ordinary subject. If the subject's thesis proves correct the subject might be a great note in history, but right now it is in the "proposal" stage - at least that is my extraction from the arguments here and the article. Really this debate should focus more on the subject and less on the proof, as at best it usually only means the proof should be the article. I could be missing something though, but that is what it looks like to me. (Sidenote: this is an epic debate in many ways) Ryan Norton 22:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your points. But the context is also quite important. Very seldom do proofs of anything science generate this much interest. And because this has I feel Wikipedia should document it. It is clear that many don't feel the same and I do respect and understand their points too. This is a weird analogy, but I see as much reason to keep this article as I do for the Double Rainbow (viral video) Wikipedia page. I agree that I may have been slightly hasty in creating this article. I haven't edited Wikipedia in many years and this is the only thing that has gotten me excited enough to edit Wikipedia. I am an inclusionist. If we can have articles on every road of a country, every vice-chancellor of every university in the world, then why not a bio about a person who has created the most interest in computer science in recent times? - Aksi_great (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone is an inclusionist. The inclusionist/non-inclusionist divide is as old as Wikipedia and you are not going to make it vanish in any particular deletion discussion. It is also only logical that you cannot expect to persuade non-inclusionists by appeals to inclusionism. Wikipedia in general might be heading more towards inclusionism in topics like roads and counties, but it is heading away from inclusionism in biographies of living people. BLP1E is in some sense a formal rejection of inclusionism in a particular class of BLP articles, of which this article is a member, so you are swimming against the tide. I'm still confused by one thing. Even if I accept your argument that this proof is worth documenting, why document it with a biography? Biographies of living people are a tremendous source of trouble in Wikipedia, and in my opinion we have way too many of them. It's much better to document math proofs in math articles, not in biographies. Yes we should also get rid of the viral video articles but that discussion gets completely adrift of the AfD topic. You can leave me a talk message about it if you want. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to make the debate vanish nor do I expect to persuade anyone. That debate is one of those important pillars that has kept Wikipedia afloat. I was just pointing out where I stand, mostly in reply to your point about why I seem to be 'obsessed' about this biography. But I disagree that I am swimming against the tide. Plenty of people have supported keeping the article on this page. Just because they are not debating doesn't mean they agree with your perspective of the tides direction of flow. I've already mentioned my point about the need to have this biography. He has done something quite notable, and only in a biography can we find more information about him like when he was born, where he got his education, what was his PhD thesis on, etc. Surely those points are not going to be included in a discussion on the history of the proofs on P=NP. - Aksi_great (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But, just to make it clear where I stand - I think it is more important to document this proof/event in an article than to have an article on Vinay Deolalikar. If we don't then much interesting information will be lost from Wikipedia - like the leaking of the proof to scribd, subsequent blog post, admiration of the proof from Lipton and Cook, Anderson's 250k bet, the crowdsourcing efforts on Polymath, subsequent coverage by mainstream news organizations, and now the disappearance of the proof from his website - Aksi_great (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has retracted the ill fated proof. If he fixes it, the page can be added later, but so far, this in not a notable person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.144.238 (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some formal statement somewhere that the proof has been retracted? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lipton asked the same thing in his blog comments. I'd expect if there were an emailed statement, Lipton would have received it, so my guess is there hasn't currently been a formal statement. The most recent version of the paper is from 8:21pm yesterday (not sure what time zone, I'm guessing western US). 75.62.4.94 (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep It is not clear at this point that the proof is flawed beyond reasonable hope (see for a similar example how there was initially a serious whole in Andrew Wiles proof), and even if the proof fails it is clear that Deolalikar's techniques are likely to be very useful and open a lot of new avenues of research which means that he arguably meets WP:ACADEMIC and certainly will meet it very soon. Certainly, deleting this now when it isn't at all clear whether the proof is good or not is not helpful. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The words "and certainly will meet it very soon" are an exact marker of a WP:CRYSTALBALL rationale. Again with no disrespect intended towards the subject, I'll believe it when I see it. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not the same situation at all. It is not a CRYSTAL situation when you have subject matter experts saying that the proof is introducing new techniques that are going to matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you are overstating what the experts are predicting and you also have to consider the context. This poor sod has just done a ton of incredibly hard work that is in the process of being shot down. Yes of course it's worth seeing if some of the ideas can be re-used, and the experts are understandably mentioning that possibility, but it's way too early to tell (crystal ball) how it will actually play out. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete There will be plenty of time to write a proper article on the man after his proof has been vetted by a team of qualified peer reviewers. Until then, any notability is due to current media--actually, blog--speculation. Come on, this is Wikipedia, not Wikileaks. John Ralston Galt (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vinay_Deolalikar&oldid=378269163"