Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opeyemi Enoch

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opeyemi Enoch[edit]

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

This mathematician fails WP:BIO1E and WP:PROF. He created a bit of a media splash a few weeks ago when the Nigerian newspapers reported that he had proved the Riemann hypothesis and won the million-dollar Millennium Prize, based only on a talk abstract at a non-prestigious conference, and the international media then picked up the story. These reports were either substance-free (no proof has emerged, and what can be found online under his name inspires no confidence) or outright falsehoods (he has not won the Millennium Prize, and cannot even be considered eligible for winning the prize until publishing a proof). There is little to say about him other than this non-story. If we have an article, we are compelled by WP:NPOV to point out that he has no proof and that some have called the story a hoax, but I think per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLP it's better to have no article at all than to have a negative (but accurate) article about a non-public-figure. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with deletion of this article. The subject's fame is because of the BBC world service article which incorrectly said he'd been awarded the Clay prize for the Riemann Hypothesis. The article was amended to explain the mistake, as were most of the mainstream press articles which mistakenly followed World Service's lead. The existing article fails WP:BLP in an unfair way to the article's subject. Crucially, no reputable source has accused him of any wrongdoing, it is clearly an innocent mistake. WP:BLP must be taken seriously as it affects peoples' lives.Createangelos (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the relevant guidelines and too much WP:RECENTISM in the article. It is unlikely to be suitable for a fully fleshed out BLP based on news articles about the Riemann controversy which give very little if any biographical detail about Enoch himself. The current version of the article does not even have his date of birth, which would be available if he met WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BLP1E, the available coverage of the subject consists entirely of news reports concerning his purported proof of the Riemann hypothesis, most of which is highly inaccurate (for instance this source, cited in the article, claims that three Millennium problems have been solved previously, the actual figure is one). The subject is only covered in the context of this event, the subject is likely to remain low profile otherwise and a non-proof of the Riemann hypothesis is not a significant event. Obviously actually solving one of the Millennium prize problems would confer notability, as the result would be very influential in the relevant fields and would generate lasting coverage of the subject in the manner of Grigori Perelman or Andrew Wiles, but that's not going to happen here. Hut 8.5 10:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable secondary sources on the subject (as required by WP:GNG), and no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Sławomir
Biały 23:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete per all above Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought of nominating this article for deletion, the very first day it was created but I decided to wait a bit to confirm the authenticity of the claim that he won the Millennium Prize. I found this claim to be untrue, hence the need to consider deletion per WP:BLP1E. I will also like to mention that he fails our criteria on WP:ACADEMIC. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:56, 24 December 2015 (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.