Deletion of Shouryya Ray

Comment: multiple reliable sources independent of the subject giving significant coverage, hence notable per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I don't think we can say, at this time, that this person has solved a problem which has baffled mathematicians for 350 years. This event has not received any coverage outside the popular press, none of the articles have quoted any mathematicians or physicists commenting on the discovery, the statement of the problem itself is unclear and this apparently stunning achievement wasn't even enough to win the competition. Scholarly sources |are preferred to news organisations for this kind of topic. I suspect what has happened here is that the significance of the discovery has been exaggerated to make a good human interest story. If that is the case (or until we have evidence it's not the case) we shouldn't be covering it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:NEWSORG)

Comment: a) per above notes that the equation derived isn't new (so it's not notable on scientific grounds), and b) the press finds something like this to crow about every few weeks, so the press coverage isn't IMO up to notability threshold for its own sake either. If it makes a splash in the academic community and/or press coverage continues for a few months, then it can be re-created with a better argument for notability, but per  we're not there yet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: As said by others, no scientific notability as per , person notable for only one event as per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:1E)

Comment: A |BLP1E if I ever saw one. It is certainly an ''interesting'' problem to solve, but it isn't as if its the holy grail of physics
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Every once in a while one of these news stories about a "wunderkind" come out, and we have a little AfD about it (remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett?)  The relevant criterion for assessing the notability of such individuals is .  Thus Terrence Tao and Karl Friedrich Gauss would have met this standard as teenagers, but Jacob Barnett and Shouryya Ray would not have (yet).  In case someone doubts the applicability of , believing sensationalist journalism in the yellow media makes for a pass of WP:GNG, well we also have  which ''clearly'' also applies here.  In fact, given that the subject did not actually solve and unsolved problem, contrary to initial reports, the current story will be of no lasting scientific importance: even the one event for which this subject is presumptively notable is entirely ephemeral
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS, . This person is known for one event, and is a news item, not a long term item. Special:Contributions/70.24.251.208|70.24.251.208
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)