Deletion of Vinay Deolalikar

Comment: The subject currently does not pass . Citability in GoogleScholarhttp://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  (e.g. prestigious academic awards, journal editorships, etc). The PvsNP claim, as of this moment, certainly qualifies under #NEWS (and, in this case, perhaps under ), 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:NOT||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: It appears that the proof has fallen through http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/fatal-flaws-in-deolalikars-proofhttp://techcrunch.com/2010/08/12/fuzzy-math/#http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19313-tide-turns-against-milliondollar-maths-proof.htmlhttp://gowers.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/could-anything-like-deolalikars-strategy-work/. According to Aug 13 column by Scott Aaronson in MIT Technology Reviewhttp://www.technologyreview.com/blog/post.aspx?bid=349&bpid=25616, "As of this writing, Vinay Deolalikar still hasn’t retracted his P≠NP claim, but a clear consensus has emerged that the proof, as it stands, is fatally flawed.". Terence Tao, who is a Fields Medal winner and a real heavyweight in the subject, basically says the same thinghttp://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/update-on-deolalikars-proof-that-p≠np/.  I think this rather negates IAR arguments urging us to wait and to ignore #NEWS,  and  above. The fact that there has been a short spike in coverage by coverage, lasting a few days, does not make one notable - stories like that belong on wikinews, not on wikipedia. There have been lots of incorrect claims to solve this or that famous problem - most of them are now no more than historical footnotes. It may be that at some point in the future Deolalikar (or someone else) manages to use his ideas to prove something interesting and significant. If and when that happens, a bio article about him might become appropriate, but that is not the case now
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: In  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: as the bio fails  and the "scandal" is not notable enough to justify an article, the basic information about temporary press interest can be '''Merge'''d to P≟NP
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: And in reply to Aksi's later comment regarding how it has generated "internet fervor", please see . Again, a policy link, but I see no better way of making the point
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: per . More and more I'm not really buying the whole concept of notability, it was never one of the original founding tenants more something intended so that wikipedia is not flooded with articles about garage band and companies trying for some self-promotion. Notability seems to have moved away from that so something quite different. Is wikipedia better for having an article on Deolalikar, I would say yes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: 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  for this result. I would say it deserves no more than one paragraph, in light of the extensive press coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: And merge. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under  or . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BIO)

Comment: At present, this article primarily documents the proof attempt, which is a otability_(events)|a notable event due to coverage from the NY Times, New Scientist, etc. The article doesn't establish otability_(academics) (as currently written). I don't think that a redirect to P versus NP problem is the best solution; that article has a large scope already, and the section for "Notable proof attempts", added mainly to discuss this proof attempt, may not be sustainable there (see for instance Talk:P_versus_NP_problem#Notable_proof_attempts
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: Looks like a classic / case. Nsk92 lays it out perfectly. Again "let's keep the article until it's notable" is against the guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Maybe notable per  ? This even maybe is an example of the use of the internet to analyze proofs, an entire wiki has been set up where one can post his opinion http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Deolalikar%27s_P!%3DNP_paper. Maybe it could be renamed to Deolalikar P vs NP paper, like the external Wiki
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EFFECT)

Comment: as afd proposer.  Deolilikar has a few research publications but as far as I can tell, not enough for notability per .    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.  Special:Contributions/75.62.4.94|75.62.4.94
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Let me repeat what I said before. The most relevant consideration here is the  policy, particularly its #NEWS and  parts. Note by the way that  (which is more relevant here since it expounds on #NEWS) and  (which is less relevant) are just essays, not even guidelines, whereas  is a core policy. The fact that there is a short immediate burst of coverage, even by reliable sources, is still very much under the #NEWS rubric. If the proof does not hold up, it will become no more than a minor historical footnote. If the proof does hold up, the author will become a famous  mathematician and a bio article will become appropriate then. Right now we are not in any position to know and it will be a while before the dust settles. If the proof is correct, it will likely take months before a consensus regarding the proof's validity emerges among the experts - this is what happened, for example, with Perelman's proof. There are also many examples of purported proofs of important conjectures where it took months to discover a flaw/gap/mistake. Once again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. For my money this means that we can and should wait until the dust settles before having an encyclopedia article about the author. We are NOT in a competition with the blogosphere, twitter and the newspapers for being the first or the most up-to-date source on some current sensationalized news-story, and we should not be trying to run in front of the train here -it is never a good idea
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:109PAPERS||WP:NOT||WP:RECENT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: The subject is a serious researcher, but not nearly notable enough per , 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: to P-NP. 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  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  and does not meet  or  or any other guideline under 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NOTCRYSTAL||WP:PROF||WP:BIO||WP:GNG)

Comment: clearly, as of now, this is a  because it's not about the guy but about his supposed proof of which the formal review hasn't been finished. If the proof holds, the guy deserves his own article. If it doesn't, there should be a mention, paragraph, or section in the appropriate P vs NP article, but not a separate article.--Special:Contributions/137.122.49.102|137.122.49.102
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: 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  pettifogging, but I say leave it for now: if the proof is wrong, we can delete the page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)