Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinay Deolalikar: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:57, 9 August 2010

Vinay Deolalikar

(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]

Weak keep. Even with the jury still out on his P vs. NP proof, I think he's a notable mathematician due to his earlier published works. —bender235 (talk) 16:58, 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 If the proof attempt has not been withdrawn or refuted within one week (by the time the afd closes) it may be worth mentioning in the P vs NP article, but the biography is premature either way.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]
- Comment - And in reply to Aksi's later comment regarding how it has generated "internet fervor", please see WP:EVENT. Again, a policy link, but I see no better way of making the point. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 17:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hehe. Don't worry about throwing policy pages at me. I'm kind-of a wiki-veteran. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep -- If the proof goes down in flames, then the article can be deleted, but if the proof holds up, or is basically sound with a few rough spots that can be worked around, then he's very well deserving of an article. I see no need to rush to deletion now. AnonMoos (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 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]

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 *'''Delete'''. The subject currently does not pass [[WP:PROF]]. Citability in GoogleScholar[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Vinay+Deolalikar%22] 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. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 19:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Keep for now''', as stated by AnonMoos. --[[User:Petter Strandmark|Petter]] ([[User talk:Petter Strandmark|talk]]) 19:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
-*'''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. [[User:Angiotensinogen|Angio]] ([[User talk:Angiotensinogen|talk]]) 19:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
+*'''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. [[User:Angiotensinogen|Angio]] ([[User talk:Angiotensinogen|talk]]) 19:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)