Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinay Deolilakar

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I created a redirect to P versus NP problem where the subject is mentioned (and it appears to be a plausible spelling error). I also userified the content as requested by Robert McClenon. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Deolilakar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. He had a brief moment of coverage when he thought he solved P vs. NP. This does not denote notability per WP:BLP1E. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that there is a typo in the title. There is already a page for Vinay Deolalikar which redirects to P versus NP problem as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinay Deolalikar. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a typo in the article title. The spelling in the old redirect is correct. The spelling of the article is wrong. I suggest that the AFD be allowed to run its course without trying to resolve the spelling. If the article is kept, the closer can then move the article, and create a redirect from the incorrect spelling. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that he thought that he had solved P vs. NP is notable, in that it had a great deal of attention in computer science and complexity theory. Notability is not temporary. Also, his proof, although almost certainly flawed, has not been conclusively refuted. Notability is not temporary. He had a great deal of attention in 2010. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage for one event (that turned out to be a non-event) does not make him notable. See WP:BLP1E. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. His results on Scholar show that his publications get a reasonable number of citations, even after excluding those papers concerned with P!=NP. I make his Scholar derived h-index to be 11, which is quite respectable, especially given that a lot of mathematics journals aren't indexed by Scholar. This probably makes him marginally notable by WP:PROF, and that together with the excitement generated by the N!=NP paper makes him definitely notable to my mind. However, the problem here is the lack of biographical information. If the only information we have on him is his work on the P/NP problem his article is going to say no more than is already said in our P versus NP problem article. Even a search of the HP Labs site does not turn up a bio. I suspect that means that there isn't a usable bio anywhere. SpinningSpark 19:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found an archived page from HP with some biographical info, but it's not live anymore. Tchaliburton (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that was used in the old redirected article. I wonder why HP took it down? Either he doesn't work there any more, or it was to save him embarassment (or possibly hate mail from intolerant mathematicians). In any case, I think we can use it after giving due weight to the criticism of his N!=NP paper. Along with my comments above, I think that is enough for a weak keep. SpinningSpark 23:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request - If the consensus is not to keep the article, can it instead be userfied back to my user space, please? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete?. A GS h-index of 11 in the highly cited field of computer science does not satisfy WP:Prof#C1. 20 would be closer. Looks like a WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. As things stand now, at best a WP:BLP1E case. A few sentences about his incorrect proof in P versus NP problem are sufficient here. GoogleScholar usually gives an over count when computing h-index, and in any case an h-index of 11 for Computer Science is pretty low, certainly not enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. Nsk92 (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't help that his name is spelled wrong here; it should be Deolalikar. Anyway, he has one reasonably well cited and well received paper, "Sparse Indexing: Large Scale, Inline Deduplication Using Sampling and Locality", and one major embarrassment (the attempted proof of P vs NP). I don't think the citation record (in a high citation field) is enough for WP:PROF and I think per WP:BLP we should lean towards not including the embarrassment unless it has more lasting significance than I think this one does. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of independent reliable sources about the person. Without reliable sources to draw on we simply cannot write an article about anything or anyone. So far we have sources only for the claim of having resolved the P versus NP problem. That is, so far, only enough for a mention in the corresponding article. Deltahedron (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.