Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashay Dharwadker

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashay Dharwadker

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

The subject clearly fails WP:PROF. All of the allegedly important contributions of this "academic" are in self-published vanity presses. A search of Google scholar reveals that none of this individuals papers have been published in the peer reviewed literature, and most of the citations are self-citations. In addition to this, the article claims not only that the subject has written a new proof of the four color theorem, but that this proof implies a new "grand unification theory" of particle physics. In other words, the subject is a crank, and apparently not a notable one. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious crackpot author, and not notable as such. Hans Adler 14:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. The above two commentators have not provided any evidence for their baseless allegations. In fact, they are violating the [biographies of living persons] policy by making baseless allegations against the subject. In my opinion, this is a very well written article and the subject has made notable published contributions (search for the ISBN numbers). The subject clearly satisfies WP:PROF, see the external link Institute of Mathematics on the subject page. All the references on the subject page are valid, published by Amazon, see the publisher's website here. Semioticity (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Semioticity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Канеюку. Hans Adler 08:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The Amazon link provided cites the publisher of his listed books as CreateSpace, whose Yahoo! blurb starts "Self-publish and sell...an Amazon group." Not the same thing. Dru of Id (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Doesn't pass the laugh test. The author has precisely 1 (one) publication in Mathematical Reviews, a 1995 paper on Moufang loops that appeared in Communications in Algebra. (Although the paper is only 10 pages long, the reviewer commented on the amount of detail in the description of the underlying basics, and the result itself appears only marginally interesting.) This paper has a citation count of precisely 1 (one) in Mathematical Reviews.
It is simply not plausible that such a person would be director of a legitimate "Institute of Mathematics" (oh, and he is the founder as well! how interesting! and the "institute"'s internet domain is named after the founder!), or that he produces the kind of break-through research results which this guy publishes with Createspace, a self-publisher. It's impossible to prove the kind of partial results to the P=NP problem claimed in the author's self-published slim books, or a legitimate great unified theory, while remaining in obscurity. Let alone both of them.
Further inspection reveals that is a relatively well known Usenet crank who plays dirty when challenged, apparently using the alias Robert (or Bob) Stewart, as in Talk:Four color theorem/Archive 2.
Now report me for violating the BLP policy if you must. Hans Adler 15:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this was not self-published, "notability" means that somebody has taken note and there is no evidence of that here. --Crusio (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only hits for GBooks are in membership rolls for the AMS. The works listed claim to give a solutions a half dozen famous unsolved problems, if even one were valid then it would create quite a stir in the mathematical community, yet there has been no such stir or even publication in a reputable journal.--RDBury (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only evidence of notability are the (almost certainly false) claims of solutions (or new solutions) to unsolved problems. And those are only in his self-published books. ("Amazon Books", indeed; they seem to be CreateSpace.), If he didn't actually exist, he might be a notable hoax. But, apparently he does exist, making him a potentially notable hoaxer. Perhaps merge to a "Dharwadker" section on Usenet cranks? (No, he doesn't seem to be noted there outside of Usenet. Sorry. Please consider Archimedes Plutonium as much more notable, and not worth of a section, as we can't find anything in the real world about him.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article References are true. All facts in the article are verifiable. Satyatrivedi (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Satyatrivedi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Канеюку. Hans Adler 08:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all references are to publications by the subject (and apparently self-published too). Hence there are no reliable, independent sources, fails WP:N. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is possible to be a notable crank but Dharwadker does not appear to have achieved that status, and neither is his work making a significant impact in conventional academia. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. A search brought up nothing that wasn't put out by the author himself. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep this article. I improved the last section heading, added inline links to relevant third party resources with editorial reviews for each reference, added citation by Canadian Mathematical Society as external link. BTW, CreateSpace is the business name of the publishing arm of Amazon Inc. The books are available in all major bookstores worldwide and also subscribed to by all major university libraries. Satyatrivedi (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You already voted in this debate. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Канеюку. Hans Adler 08:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrmph. Amazon sales pages with reader-submitted reviews are not "third party resources with editorial reviews". An entry in "Knot a braid of links" (which comes with the following disclaimer: "The KaBoL linkmaster thinks these sites are fascinating, whether reliable or not. The CMS does not validate their content.") is not a "citation by Canadian Mathematical Society", and CreateSpace is a typical self-publisher and does not even try to hide the fact ("CreateSpace: Self-Publishing and Free Distribution for Books, CDs, DVD", to quote the title tag of their homepage). We are not all fools here, you know. Hans Adler 12:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1. I was going to say something equivalent, but Hans said everything I wanted to, only better. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact, none of the books even has a reader-submitted review yet. Which is a pity because someone might innocently make the mistake of buying one of them under the impression that they contain proper mathematics. Apparently by "editorial review" you are referring to the "book description" as Amazon calls it. Let's see what CreateSpace has to say on the matter: "How to Write an Effective Book Description [...] The problem is that many authors have a hard time writing a good book description. The main reason it can prove so difficult is because they don't want to leave anything out. As the creator of the material, there's a natural instinct to find a way to cram all or as much of that material into the description. But too many details can render your description confusing and ineffective. [...] You are not writing your book description as the author. You are writing it as the publisher. Making an impact on the reader is your principal concern. What will move the reader to want to know more about your book? What will motivate the reader to add your book to his or her cart? Write the book description with your head, not your heart. Remember, the book description is marketing material - not literature." [1]

You are trying to sell us this as "third party resources with editorial reviews"? Have you no shame? Hans Adler 13:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article The subject of the article is certainly notable. I doubt that Amazon would market the books so aggressively otherwise. Sour grapes!!!! Semioticity (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You already voted in this debate. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Канеюку. Hans Adler 08:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS shows just that same (single) paper. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Self-published books do not count. -- 202.124.74.63 (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Aside from the sourcing issues, there is no evidence or expectation of notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. In my opinion, the subject is notable among the listed categories. The article is quite well-written and the references and links are verifiable. I object to the AfD. Greenfernglade (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Greenfernglade (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (New user account), And see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Канеюку. Hans Adler 14:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2011 (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.