Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinay Deolalikar
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
— User:Nsk92, 05:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:109PAPERS||WP:NOT||WP:RECENT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)