Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinay Deolalikar

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 merge to P_versus_NP_problem . Whilst it would be tempting to close this as "no consensus" whilst the actual story plays out, there appears to be consensus that Deolalikar would only be personally notable if (a) the proof turns out to be correct, or (b) he becomes otherwise notable. At the moment, we have an article on a person that is purely about one event. In the event of the proof being correct, the information can always be spun out again. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Vinay Deolalikar

Vinay Deolalikar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Nominating this substantially on behalf of 75.62.4.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who cannot start an AfD himself, but posted on the article talk page as follows:

I'd like to propose an AfD for this article (as an unregistered user I can't start one myself). It is way premature. Obviously if the proof checks out the article will be necessary. Otherwise it will be an embarassment to the subject, who didn't seek any sort of publicity (he circulated the proof privately to some other researchers for comment, but word got out). At least one real expert has bet long odds against the proof being right.

Status update (13 August): the proof is all but dead.[1][2][3][4] The biography reduces to "this guy got 15 minutes of unwanted internet fame because he thought he solved a famous math problem, but turned out to be wrong". The attempt is mentioned in the P vs NP article and a biography of the author is IMO definitely not needed per BLP1E. Redirection is better.

75.62.4.94 (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

While I myself suspect Deolalikar may be notable due to earlier published mathematical work, the current article is focused on one proof that has gotten a large amount of attention but may not be correct. If it is correct, Deolalikar will be as notable as Grigori Perelman; until then, this proposed proof does not establish notability. Gavia immer (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete: There are a few sources that could be considered notable: [5], [6], however, I think the problem is due to WP:NTEMP. Also withdrawing DYK nomination. SPat ^talk 16:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Even with the jury still out on his P vs. NP proof, I think he's a notable mathematician due to his earlier published works. —bender235 (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. I don't know why are we even having this discussion. He is a notable mathematician and has come up with a serious attempt at one of the most challenging problems in computing. The point is not whether his proof has been accepted by the community or not. If we want to delete this article, then we should probably also delete articles on all the physicists that came out with theories that were proved wrong. I am amazed at how we are willing to keep an article on Scott Aaronson, whose only claim to fame is a blog and a SciAm article while deleting this article about a man who has possibly done more for computing sciences with his proof than most others. Even if the proof does come out faulty, my bet is that it will open up more avenues than it closes. pratyushnidhi

• Delete redirect as afd proposer. Deolilikar has a few research publications but as far as I can tell, not enough for notability per WP:PROF. WP:PROF 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. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • (update) Proof attempt is now mentioned in P vs NP article and we should redirect to there. The attempt is now basically toast as predicted, so we definitely don't need to inflict a biography on the poor guy. (75.62.4.84 is me but my address reset for some reason). 67.122.209.167 (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment In WP:PROF 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. Favonian (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I agree that WP:PROF should agree to an industrial researcher in general (sure, those guys publish papers, but they are hired in part to basically be internal consultants for technical problems that arise in the company's business). Either way, it seems to me that he fails all the WP:PROF criteria. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't claim to understand the specific paper, but surely if someone publishes scholarly research papers, then they are "engaged in scholarly research", whether or not that's the day job? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep
  • He is a notable computer scientist and mathematician before this. Just because people have still not written about those papers till now does not mean we should delete the article
  • The P/NP proof has gotten a lot of publicity from the computer science world. Thousands of tweets and blog posts and a mention that is a very serious attempt (if not the most serious till now) towards answering the question.
  • Currently this Wikipedia article ranks in the top 5 google hits for Vinay Deolalikar. Which means this page must be getting thousands of hits and thus we should not waste the chance to expand this article. It is much harder to start an article on your own for random people than expand one. And we already seem to agree that he is notable enough in the first place to deserve the article. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd like to see documentation of Aksi's claim that Deolilikar is a notable computer scientist or mathematician before this, by Wikipedia's standards of notability, otherwise I don't believe it. With no disrespect intended to Deolilikar, he has a PhD in the subject and a few research publications in middle-tier(?) journals. He has no books published. He has no academic post. He has not supervised any well-known students. He has not received any significant awards or recognition. His past research results while legitimate and worthwhile don't appear major (obviously that will change in the unlikely event that the P=NP proof is valid). As it stands, plenty of graduate students have more substantial research track records than his, so I don't see the evidence of notibility. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Not only that, but HP Labs is a research institution and his position as "principal research scientist" does not indicate a very prominent or senior level of attainment there. Plenty of people get that title just by being there more than several years. He hasn't won any societal or industrial awards either (of which there are plenty). If I had to map his position to that at a research university, I would put him as a postdoc or research associate, or more generously a tenure-track assistant prof. Certainly not a full professor, which in general is what we require here. 69.86.106.215 (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
      • In addition, people keep mentioning the "serious attempt" claim, but they should understand this is a bit of jargon. "Serious attempt" does not mean it is a particularly good one. It just means this is an actual piece of academic research, not crap from some crank. It certainly does not mean this is amongst the better ones in recent years. Most researchers would circulate their proof attempts a lot more privately than the subject has done here. And there are plenty of them. It usually doesn't leak out and cause Internet fervor though. 69.86.106.215 (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
        • You may be right. But the reason I created this article was precisely because of the 'internet fervor' it has generated and because a lot of people may be wanting to read a wikipedia entry on the guy to know what the deal is. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Are you implying that he leaked it himself? What's your source for that?
          • I don't think there's any controversy, he wrote his paper and emailed it to various researchers in the field for comment, and one of blogged about it. I think what 69.* was getting at is that emailing something to a bunch of strangers out of the blue is not very private. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• It certainly shouldn't be deleted. Even if the proof doesn't pan out, the most Wikipedia should do with this not-yet-24-hour-old article is to merge it with P versus NP problem as having been arguably the most promising approach one of the more promising directions of the past four decades. Hopefully by the time the status of the proof has been settled a sketch of the proof itself including what makes it novel will have been added to the article on Deolalikar. (As an aside, Scott Aaronson's generous offer is not a bet but a prize supplement, in fact his so-called "long odds" aren't even a standard real. While some have taken Scott's offer as a cynical gesture one could by that logic say the same of the Clay Institute, unless Scott limits his offer to Deolalikar which would then be quite a different matter.) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • • Merging to P versus NP problem counts as deletion as far as I'm concerned. I'd be ok with mentioning the proof attempt in that article, if one week passes (starting from the announcement) and it hasn't been withdrawn or refuted. There is more discussion taking place at Talk:P versus NP problem. I'm not an OR-removal zealot when it comes to math articles but I think whether this proof attempt contains interesting novelties is yet to be determined. Wikipedia should certainly not go around describing such novelties until that determination has taken place. Scott's offer certainly is a bet and not a "prize supplement" since unlike the Clay Institute he has not offered the $200k to all comers, but only to this proof. It's a fairly safe assumption that he would not have directed such an offer at a purported proof by a recognized expert, or one which really wrestled with the known obstacles against P vs NP proofs, instead of handwaving them. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
      • (Oops, we had an edit conflict: I was adding a caveat making the same point you did about other proofs when you posted, then I hit another edit conflict with the below. Lot of traffic!) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete or merge - Goodness, third edit conflict I've run into. Anyway, not notable enough to meet requirements. Maybe once the proof is substantiated? Additionally, I'd like to point out a few things in response to Aksi's argument. Do you have sources proving notability? Regarding your second point (about the blog posts and tweets) please read WP:UNRS. Regarding your third point, please see WP:POPULARPAGE. Sorry to throw policies at you like this, but the arguments you make above are not strong enough to hold up. The first might be, if you had sources to back it up. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 17:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - And in reply to Aksi's later comment regarding how it has generated "internet fervor", please see WP:EVENT. Again, a policy link, but I see no better way of making the point. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 17:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Hehe. Don't worry about throwing policy pages at me. I'm kind-of a wiki-veteran. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Provisional Keep -- If the proof goes down in flames, then the article can be deleted, but if the proof holds up, or is basically sound with a few rough spots that can be worked around, then he's very well deserving of an article. I see no need to rush to deletion now. AnonMoos (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep -- give the article time to mature rather than killing it before it has time to settle down. Vinay is still trending upwards in the news so the article is likely to get more readers and contributors. See Trends. It is also (to the best of my knowledge) one of the best places to find informed opinions about the likely validity of the proof, and more likely than many other places to continue to be up-to-date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanf (talk • contribs) 18:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I second that Keep, http://stats.grok.se/en/201008/Vinay_Deolalikar tells us that during just a few days there has been about 80 000 people interested in knowing more about Vinay. The proof can be whatever it is but there is an interest in knowing who this guy is, and jsut as an internet meme it could be considered worthy with such media attention. The proof is another story and it most likely will be considered false, but might in itself still not be considered null worth. Gillis (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That is not valid reasoning: 1) our whole approach to notability is supposedly that we write an article after notability is established, not before. WP is not Google Trends and those wanting Google Trends know where to find it. We are constantly beating back self-promotion by garage bands who claim to be "trending upwards" or "about to make it" (I'm not saying this is a self-promotion article of course). 2) The amount of press attention is irrelevant unless the proof turns out to be correct. If the proof is deemed incorrect (which I consider more likely) then the article should be deleted to avoid embarrassing the subject even if there has been considerable press attention, per WP:BLP1E. The latter is the main reason I'm supporting deletion now, if that matters. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep for now. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject currently does not pass WP:PROF. Citability in GoogleScholar[7] is fairly skimpy, particularly for a computer scientist; with h-index of about 8. Nothing else of significance in the record to indicate passing WP:PROF (e.g. prestigious academic awards, journal editorships, etc). The PvsNP claim, as of this moment, certainly qualifies under WP:NOT#NEWS (and, in this case, perhaps under WP:BLP1E), 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. Nsk92 (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep for now, as stated by AnonMoos. --Petter (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Provisional keep, 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 WP:NOT pettifogging, but I say leave it for now: if the proof is wrong, we can delete the page. Angio (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • You really have it backwards. We are not supposed to be crystallballing here. If the proof holds up, then a bio article about the proof's author will become acceptable and appropriate. For now it is not. As far as I can tell, most of the noise has been in the blogosphere, with a small number of sources that might pass WP:RS. WP:NOT is certainly relevant here - we are not supposed to serve as a significant venue for propagating a particular sensationalized claim. A mention of the claimed proof in P versus NP problem is as much as is appropriate now, not a bio article. Nsk92 (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete The subject is a serious researcher, but not nearly notable enough per WP:PROF, 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 WP:BLP1E 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. Blowfish (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a classic WP:CRYSTAL/WP:NOTNEWS case. Nsk92 lays it out perfectly. Again "let's keep the article until it's notable" is against the guidelines. Ryan Norton 20:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Provisional Keep No need to rush the delete. This proof attempt has generated a huge amount of attention. The page can document this attempt, and provide a landing spot for the curious.Bestchai (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment re the "provisional keep"s: nobody is trying to "rush the delete", which means proposing speedy deletion. Under the afd process the article will stay up for a week while the afd progresses. That is not a "rush". I believe it likely that by the end of the week the proof will have been found incorrect, invalidating the "provisional keep" rationales by the time of the afd closure. Either way, the status of the proof attempt at closure time should be taken into account when closing. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The manuscript is over a hundred pages long, and relies on advanced connections between multiple areas of mathematics. I doubt that there will be a unanimous decision by the complexity community in a week's time.Bestchai (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • There will not be a unanimous decision in favor of the proof in a week. There could very well be a decision against it in a week, i.e. if somebody finds a mistake on (say) page 74 that can't be repaired. That is what I see as most likely to happen. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment We have to bear in mind that claims of proof to the biggest problems happen periodically, even ones made by serious people. And most of these claims are wrong. In recent years, the Riemann Hypothesis has been claimed solved by Louis de Branges de Bourcia, by Xian-Jin Li, and maybe others -- serious mathematicians, but their work didn't withstand scrutiny. So this isn't a case where we should presume that the proof will be accepted, because simply going by past experience, it won't. Putting this page up doesn't do the subject any favours, either. There is a reason why the paper has been circulated quietly -- publicity is at best unhelpful. And if the proof turns out to be false, then this page will have contributed to harming the reputation of a researcher acting in good faith and who was trying to quietly get his work reviewed. Under BLP we aren't supposed to invade this person's privacy until there is a good reason to do so, and right now there certainly isn't. Blowfish (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • If there is a comment I disagree more with on this page, then it is this one. Of course wrong claims are made again and again. But how many times does one claim gain fame and excitement (and initial respect) as much as this one has? And I don't know what point you tried to make by citing Xian-Jin Li and Louis de Branges de Bourcia as both of them have wikipedia articles! And at least in Xian-Jin Li's case, the incorrect proof is a quarter of the article. And bringing BLP into the debate is quite silly. I do not see how a mention of the proof which has been called a serious attempt by Lipton and Cook would end up harming his reputation as a researcher. Aksi_great (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • • I'm not surprised you disagree. Basically by creating this article, you have most likely done this man harm. It's natural for you not to want to admit this. There's a good chance (just going by history) that this proof is going to fail, and if the mistake is a simple oversight (which can happen even to the best researchers in far shorter papers), Deolalikar could well end up with egg on his face. Unlike some other researchers who have made big mistakes that end up in the press somehow and who can presumably find comfort in established reputations and long publication records (besides de Branges, Martin Dunwoody comes to mind), this will be hanging over his head for a long time. I know if I were him, I would be pretty upset with you. As Blowfish says, publicity is something that is not helpful to the peer review process. The greater the publicity and thus the greater a target Deolalikar becomes, the greater the risk that people are going to go out of their way to bash him. If it turns out to be an elementary mistake, then it's not going to be the usual "hey, you made this mistake. But nice try!"...it's going to be something like "hey everyone, look at this guy...doesn't he even understand the basics of [elementary topic]??" Things can easily turn ugly. You say that the amount of attention this has gathered somehow trumps any BLP concerns...well, that's exactly why the BLP policy was implemented: to trump this kind of recentism publicity. Note that we don't have an article on Brian Peppers, despite the tons of people that claimed somehow the publicity and people's right to know somehow trumped concerns of harm to the subject. --69.86.106.215 (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
        • It's customary when circulating a draft to label it as such on the draft itself, typically with the addition of "Please do not circulate further." Had Deolaliker done so it would be reasonable to view Baker as some sort of wikileaker. However the paper was circulated as a complete and polished paper with no restrictions on its further circulation. By omitting this elementary precaution Deolaliker has effectively invited comment from all, which is what he's now getting. If this was not what he wanted then the omission was in hindsight most unfortunate. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I'll agree that Deolalikar should have worked harder to prevent release. Nevertheless, he claims on his personal page that the paper was put on the web without his knowledge. Blowfish (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I couldn't find that claim, what's his exact wording of it? Since he put the paper on the web himself (unless his admin did it without his knowledge) that would be an odd thing to say. You--or he--may have meant something to the effect that he didn't authorize Baker or anyone else to publicize its existence or circulate copies of it. The copies circulating outside HP are now out of date which is also unfortunate. Moral: always stamp drafts not intended for circulation as such. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
              • Yup, he's now removed any mention of the P=NP paper at all. Feel free to disregard, accordingly. For the record, however, I believe that the sequence of events was this: Deolalikar sends paper to experts; experts forward paper to friends, since there is at least some epsilon chance that its for reals; Baker leaks it, and someone puts it on scribd; Deolalikar finds out, and decides that since jig is up, he might as well put it on his own website, where at least he can make clear which version is current. (BTW, I found one comment here that affirms that Deolalikar claimed that someone else leaked it to the web before him.) Blowfish (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the accolade, it's heartwarming. I'm not really sure that there's any fame and excitement surrounding this claim just yet, but if you want to compare it to previous attempts, you'll note that Li's Riemann claim was slash-dotted as well (it's really not that high a bar to clear) and de Bourcia's claim was reported by the BBC. Your next argument is WP:OTHERSTUFF; and for the record, Li's page almost certainly shouldn't be there. As for the matter of reputation, it may be unfair, but if the claim doesn't hold up then there is some harm to reputation. There's no reason to compound matters by prematurely splattering this man's name on wikipedia, and yes it's exactly that reason that we have BLP, which this article violates in several places. Blowfish (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC).
      • Can you point out the many violations of BLP for me? Except for the one-event part and I claim that the event has been big enough to warrant an article. As far as the "prematurely splattering" allegation goes, it was not on Wikipedia that it first happened. His name was "splattered" all over internet yesterday, and Wikipedia being a major reference source obviously has an article from him. You make it sound as if Wikipedia got the article first and now is on some mission to tarnish Vinay's reputation. - Aksi_great (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Can you read WP:PROF? That's the most relevant section for an academic such as this subject, and it makes it quite clear why a page isn't appropriate. I would cite WP:BLP1E] or WP:109PAPERS, except that so far, this is a non-event that hasn't even been in one paper of record. That's what I mean when I say that this fails BLP -- it fails spectacularly, and in every possible sense. Blowfish (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Aksi, I actually thought of the incident with Li (though I didn't remember his name) and the Riemann hypothesis during this discussion. I hadn't noticed before that Li is now the subject of a biography. I'd appreciate it if you (or someone else) could open an AfD for Li's biography and I will support its deletion. I do believe that de Branges' purported proof of RH has indeed harmed his reputation, as did some other mistaken proofs that he announced earlier in his career. That is described in the biography of him. The de Branges biography is problematic in many ways, though probably not harming him much, since he's been around for a long time and is apparently something of an attention seeker, unlike Deolalikar (so far) or Li. I've heard that when de Branges proof of the Bieberbach conjecture was finally accepted, a number of mathematicians were actually angry--they expected it to be wrong because earlier claimed results of his had been wrong. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Is there something stopping you from making a username and doing it yourself? You seem to be either well-worsed in wiki policies or a fast learner. - Aksi_great (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I've put a note on the Li talk page, suggesting deletion. If there isn't a good argument against deletion, I'll open an AfD. Blowfish (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks, I replied there. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Some people just don't want to make an account, which is actually respectable in a way given the current environment is bit hostile to them. I must say I commend these IPs in this debate so far; debate with real substance is always nice to see. And WOW edit conflicts galore, great stuff. Ryan Norton 00:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Keep My vote is assuming that the information located at [8] is correct. It states that: "confirmations [of the P != NP proof] began arriving 8th August early morning" from "several leading researchers in various areas". If the proof has indeed been confirmed by several leading researchers (and those researchers can be identified), this article should stay. fintler (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Fintler, the proof hasn't been confirmed (validated) by anyone. I think the "confirmation" that you cite just means people wrote back saying "I got your paper and will look at it". Several people have found apparent problems in the proof (see commenters in Lipton's and Aaronson's blogs) though nobody yet has come out and said it's wrong. It's really impossible to validate a complex proof like this in just one day. The Clay prize has a two year waiting period. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah, if that's the case then I retract my keep and vote No Opinion. I'm solely basing my choice on the wording from that link. It makes sense that confirmation doesn't mean validation, especially since it's 102 pages long. fintler (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep -- I propose leaving the article up for one month and re-evaluating it then. It isn't as though we don't have the space for it, and it is a well documented current event -- in any case, even if the proof is disproved, the attempt may be newsworthy enough for an article. It would be exceedingly bureaucratic of us to delete this page before the end of one month to let the news and evaluations play out, and god knows there's certainly enough obstructive bureaucracy around here as is. The article was created in good faith on a broadly discussed person and topic, an article will be valid upon acceptance of the proof, an article on the proof's author may be valid even if the proof is rejected depending on circumstances, and no harm is done leaving the article up on "probation" until events play out. TeamZissou (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• .... if it's newsworthy enough for an article, we'll get clearly noteworthy secondary sources. So far we don't have that. That the article was written in good faith is irrelevant; that's necessary, but not sufficient, to keep. JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Not proven, and even the kerfuffle over whether it's a valid proof hasn't yet proven notable. No noteworthy sources have covered this yet. _If_ it is accepted by the mathematics community, even then, coverage should be in the P!=P article. JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "_If_ it is accepted by the mathematics community, even then, coverage should be in the P!=P article". You're joking, right? - Aksi_great (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Multiple reliable third party sources about him and his purported proof. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Weak keep. 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 WP:COATRACK for this result. I would say it deserves no more than one paragraph, in light of the extensive press coverage. Dcoetzee 02:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • There are guidelines: WP:PROF, and the bar is fairly high. Deolalikar, I submit, does not clear it -- no shame on him, he is a reputable researcher, but not to the extent that would establish notability. Blowfish (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficient notability at present. If the proof is accepted by the scientific community that will change. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC).
• Keep - I found this webpage (the article, not the discussion webpage) quite interesting. Thanks to the guys who wrote it. Once again, Wikipedia was the best place to get the best informations. That's too bad that some people want to delete this webpage. As a mathematician, I know it happens quite often that some preprints have some flaws (and sometimes, some flaws which are impossible to correct), there is nothing infamous about this. Errors are a part of evolutions of ideas, and there is not a single famous scientist who did no mistake (and even published/refereed mistakes !). It would be strange to make some censure on this article just because some ayatollah here think the author could be ashamed of such an "advertising". The preprint is publicly available on Deolalikar's webpage , and indeed contains interesting ideas (I'm not expert in complexity classes, so I wont be a good referee for this article but the whole approach really makes sense). And it is good that some people can join their effort in this wikipedia page to say more about the author and the proof, EVEN if the proof is not working finally. Just compare with physics, where you'll find hundreds of wrong/incomplete theories (with a wikipedia webpage on it). Unfortunately, it is more seldom to communicate on flaws in mathematics, but that's sad, because it contributes to spread the idea that mathematics are good/correct from A to Z, which is totally wrong. From a history of science point of view, from a mathematical ideas point of view, for a better understanding of computer science in progress, all such webpages are USEFUL. For sure, we'll know more in few days, but this does not make the article, as it is today, less interesting. I hope that more and more people could bring some precision/links, allowing any student to understand the approach, the challenge, etc. We all prefer to have good information in an usual location (wikipedia) rather than spending hours in reading blogs because some ayatollah decided not to let this information on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.224.52.136 (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - The person will be notable even if proof is shown to be incorrect. No proposed proof for this problem has generated such interest, and so quickly, from famous people in the relevant fields so far. Those who suggest quick deletion only show their ignorance and misunderstanding of what is important. A solution to such important problem can be very interesting scientifically, with a new interesting approach and new interesting techniques, even if incorrect. All those with a quick finger on the delete button: Please be patient! Meanwhile this article can provide updated reliable status on this solution to many avid Wikipedia users (like me) as the other Wikipedia articles do! 207.180.160.126 (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - The preceding 2 votes/points have been copied by me from the talk page of the article where they were mistakenly left. It was my decision to write the word keep in front of their messages as that is what they were obviously trying to tell. - Aksi_great (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Multiple voting is not allowed. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC).

Did you even care to read what I have written? These are not my 'votes'. I merely copied them over from the talk page of the article because the anons had left the comments there instead of here where they belong. Am reverting your deletion of the votes. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Since AfDs are not votes anyway, I don't see how you are justified in deleting commentary, though I personally do not support or oppose said commentary. — flamingspinach | (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yep, not a vote and those comments don't give any arguments that have any bearing on establishing notability, so they are likely to be ignored anyway. --Crusio (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Move to be an article about the proof attempt, rather than about the individual. This person doesn't seem to be notable enough to merit a biography due to WP:BLP concerns, but the proof itself may deserve an article. Oren0 (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Obvious deleteMerge and redirect 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 WP:RS 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 WP:NOTCRYSTAL and does not meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO or any other guideline under WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, maybe merge. The effort is notable, the paper is interesting, the page looks fine. I'd wait to see how this turns out before wiping out a page that then needs to be rewritten. I can't see how the page could in any way be an "embarassment to the subject" (original rfd reason). --Sigmundur (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Question In what way is this effort notable? In the WP sense, notability is well-defined. --Crusio (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. And merge. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. 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.--Eric Yurken (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Merge into P_versus_NP_problem and Redirect. Let's say it turns out the proof is correct. In that case, he'll certainly be worthy of an article about him. And there will be plenty of time to write it at that time. So what that the article doesn't get written for another few weeks or months? We are an encyclopedia. We are not a newspaper. We are not the TV news. Getting there first doesn't matter. Getting it right does. This is a classic case of WP:RECENT -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Most likely the proof will turn out to be flawed. If it does then a few days or week of blog coverage will not b4 enough to establish notability. And his previous research does not establish notability on its own. MathHisSci (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment While I agree that this article is currently highly dubious for WP:BIO notability, mainstream press articles are beginning to appear. For example, a New Scientist story was published today. I would be surprised if there was not enough coverage within the next couple of days to gain notability. Yes, this is a crystal ball argument, but is there really any harm waiting a few days? Adacore (t·c) 16:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Also PC World, NDTV India (one of the biggest news channels of India) and AOL News - Aksi_great (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Deolalikar appears to have removed the paper (revised version) and its description from his web site.[9] The pdf link to the old version still works, maybe by accident. I haven't heard anything yet about whether he is withdrawing the claim, putting up a new version, or what. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Which could mean either that the proof is unfixable, as some have alleged, or that Deolalikar is working quietly to fix it. What is clear, is that he doesn't want this publicity right now. Blowfish (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • From what can you conclude that he doesn't want publicity? Unless you've talked to him. And even if he doesn't, the cat is out of the bag right now. He's already got a lot of publicity, and a Wikipedia article makes no difference. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
      • When his webpage did contain mention of the paper, he said it had been leaked to the web without his knowledge. Now any mention of it is gone. As for the cat being out of the bag, despite what twitter users may think, there really has been very little coverage of this whole story. It's still a non-event. Blowfish (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Re Aksi: "And even if he doesn't, the cat is out of the bag right now. He's already got a lot of publicity, and a Wikipedia article makes no difference"-- sorry, but that is the precise description of a BLP1E situation. It says "delete". As for whether Deolalikar wants publicity: people outside of publicity-seeking professions (like media or politics) should generally be presumed to not want publicity. So absent info to the contrary we should treat this biography as unwanted by the subject. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm getting tired of you quoting BLP1E all over the place. Now this is from BLP1E - "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate.". Is the event significant? Yes. With you latest comment even you seem to agree with that now. Is Vinay's role in it substantial? Yes. There is no doubting that. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
          • If the proof is recognized as correct and the guy gets the $1 million Clay prize, that would be a significant event under BLP1E and also establish personal notability per WP:PROF. An unsuccessful proof is not significant even if it gets press mentions. Significant is a much higher standard than "notable". Even if significance is established (e.g. the failed proof has good ideas that influence other people's work) that by itself still doesn't establish the personal notability necessary for a biography, which needs separate documentation (WP:BIO, WP:PROF). We'd instead write about the influence in the relevant math articles. FWIW, the P=NP article links to a page by Gerhard Woeginger listing dozens of unsuccessful P vs NP proofs, most of them not even notable. Really, you're on the wrong track: WP should be writing fewer biographies of living people, not more. Do you mind if I ask if you know Deolalikar? If you do, it would be good if you could ask him what he thinks of all this. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep He seems trivially notable under WP:BIO. There are multiple traditional news articles, as has been pointed out, and even if the proof is flawed it is generally acknowledged that much of the work in it is good and will contribute to other results in the field. (For one example of this see issue #4 here. Personman (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • There are no biographical news articles or profiles as far as I can tell. There are a few random press mentions of the proposed P/NP proof. I do begin to believe that the proposed proof has become notable enough to warrant mention in Wikipedia (in the P/NP article, say), but that by itself doesn't justify writing a biography of the author. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

From BLP1E - "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate." Which part of this statement do you think does not apply here? - Aksi_great (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It applies in full, including the words if and may. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The event will have no lasting significance unless the proof holds up. Not only are you missapplying BLP1e, you're ignoring WP:RECENT. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a news service. Blowfish (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not I but you who is ignoring what is written in WP:RECENT. Let me see if I can educate you.

• Firstly, "Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well — up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer."
• Also, "A news spike is a sudden mass interest in any current event, whereupon Wikipedians create and update articles on it, even if some readers later feel that the topic was not historically significant in any way. The result might be a well-written and well-documented neutral-point-of-view article on a topic that might hardly be remembered a month later (see Jennifer Wilbanks and the article's deletion debate). Still, these articles are valuable for future historical research."
• "But in many cases, such content is a valuable preliminary stage in presenting information. Any encyclopedia goes through rough drafts; new Wikipedia articles are immediately published in what might be considered draft form: They can be — and are — improved in real time"
• "Collaborative editing on Wikipedia has resulted in a massive encyclopedia of comprehensive and well-balanced articles on the many current events of the mid-to-late 2000s. This record will be valuable to those in the future who seek to understand the history of this time period"
• "What might seem at the time to be an excessive amount of information on recent topics actually serve the purpose of drawing in new readers — and among them, potential new Wikipedians"

All these things are applicable in the current case. In face WP:RECENT says exactly why we should keep this article instead of deleting it. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to comment on why you cherry picked statements out of the guideline to make it seem like the policy is an uncritical endorsement of all and any recent event coverage? The most relevant part is the ten year test: "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?" And unless the proof holds up, or contributes to another proof, the answer is no. Hence your creation of the page was far far premature. Blowfish (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I pointed out the statements because you keep on saying WP:RECENT as if the essay (it is not even a guideline or a policy) is as uncritical endorsement of not including all and any recent event coverage. As for the 10 year test, see my comment below. - Aksi_great (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - More mentions of the proof - Livemint(another popular news network in India) and Nature. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Nearly all these sources say nearly the same thing (to the point of mind-numbing-ness) - here's someone who might have solved XXX problem and be eligable for a 1mil reward, then the usual copy-paste background. It seems like a classic case of WP:109PAPERS, in particular the last paragraph. Ryan Norton 20:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Fwiw, the Nature article isn't just another rehash of various blog posts -- they actually talked to Lipton (but failed to reach Deolalikar). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.170.7 (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why you shouldn't link them from Vinay's article. See, the issue is this - we can all quote Wikipedia's million WP: abbreviations and prove our own points, like I just did with WP:RECENT in my previous comment. In the end, even if this is a recent event, it does not make it any less significant. Wikipedia is not a news organization but it is our job to have encyclopedic entries on significant events and people. And this is a significant event, probably the most significant event in recent times when it comes to solving the P=NP problem, even if it may turn out to be a wrong proof. What makes me say this? - blog posts by the most notable computer scientists, news articles and also the surge in activity on pages related to this event. Whether it will be historically significant? 100 years from now? I don't know. But as WP:RECENT says, this is one of the beautiful things about Wikipedia = "This record will be valuable to those in the future who seek to understand the history of this time period". - Aksi_great (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This `historical record' argument is getting silly. It's only something you can look to if the even is of clear significance -- think hurricane Katrina. A thousand twitter updates do not make this even close to being significant. Even if there were wide-spread coverage in major news sources, which there is not, you would still have some hurdles to clear to demonstrate significance, per 109Papers. As it is, NDTV seems like pretty much the only relevant major news report. Why don't you take the advice in WP:RECENT and use wikinews, which is intended for this sort of thing (or would be if this even really were all that significant). Blowfish (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

By that logic we wouldn't be keeping articles for all the other tropical storms and cyclones around the world. They will definitely not be historically significant as you put it. But think about someone who is researching the history of P=NP proofs. Would this then not be historically significant in that context? Is this P=NP proof not the one that has received the most news coverage? The only way out of this argument I can see is to create an article on all notable P=NP proofs and then merge all information from this article to a section on that article. But right now there is no article like that and there is not even consensus about having a section on notable proofs on the P=NP talk page. - Aksi_great (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, that only makes sense if we can demonstrate that there's something notable in the history of P=NP proof attempts. I think the best summary of the status of the P=NP problem was provided by Lance Fortnow, with the comment "Still open." Until that changes, the historiography of the P=NP problem is a niche within a niche within a niche. And though I applaud anyone with esoteric interests, since I myself have my own, I don't think that the history of P=NP problem attempts is significant enough to be an article here. As to the status of a biography page for Deolalikar, he hasn't published enough papers with impact to qualify for a bio yet. Anything else is crystal balling. Blowfish (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, why would the history of attempts to solve a Clay Math problem be not important enough to have a Wikipedia article? - Aksi_great (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The main resource for the history of failed P vs NP proof attempts is Woeginger's page[10] and our P vs NP article already links to it. As for historiography of the problem, Sipser and Fortnow have written excellent survey articles that we also link to, again primarily about the development of the mathematical ideas, which is the important stuff. I simply don't understand Aksi_great's obsession with the idea that we should be writing a biography of one particular author of such a proof (assuming it fails). Mathematics is about ideas, not about personalities. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether Woeginger has a page or not does not make any difference to me. That is why Wikipedia is not a linkfarm but a collection of articles. If someone comes to Wikipedia for a history of notable proofs, he expects to find an article not a link to some external website which may disappear any day. Also, Mathematics may be about ideas, but this is Wikipedia not Mathematics. And as far as obsession goes, I could say the same about obsession not to cover this event on Wikipedia. It almost seems as if you have some vested interest against covering it. As I have already said, BLP1E does say that if the event is notable and a person plays an important role, then it is ok to have a biography page on that person. - Aksi_great (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to question anyone's motives. I'm convinced that all of the people in the comments above are acting in good faith, though obviously I disagree strenuously with some of them. Regarding notable proofs, I really don't think there have been any. There have been some notable steps toward discovering what wont work, relativization, etc. But no purported proofs have met a category that could be considered noteworthy. Absent a confirmed proof, all we have is the impact of Deolalikar's publications, which isn't nearly at a level yet where he can be considered noteowrthy enough for a bio. Blowfish (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

To put it another way; in this case apparently this subject is only notable for this one proof that is decribed over and over and over and over again in sources as "a proposal that might be the solution to" or similar. There is very little coverage about what the subject (carefully worded to not damage the subject's reputation) did besides this; most of the actual information itself is already in another article, and outside of that this would basically be a bio of an otherwise ordinary subject. If the subject's thesis proves correct the subject might be a great note in history, but right now it is in the "proposal" stage - at least that is my extraction from the arguments here and the article. Really this debate should focus more on the subject and less on the proof, as at best it usually only means the proof should be the article. I could be missing something though, but that is what it looks like to me. (Sidenote: this is an epic debate in many ways) Ryan Norton 22:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand your points. But the context is also quite important. Very seldom do proofs of anything science generate this much interest. And because this has I feel Wikipedia should document it. It is clear that many don't feel the same and I do respect and understand their points too. This is a weird analogy, but I see as much reason to keep this article as I do for the Double Rainbow (viral video) Wikipedia page. I agree that I may have been slightly hasty in creating this article. I haven't edited Wikipedia in many years and this is the only thing that has gotten me excited enough to edit Wikipedia. I am an inclusionist. If we can have articles on every road of a country, every vice-chancellor of every university in the world, then why not a bio about a person who has created the most interest in computer science in recent times? - Aksi_great (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone is an inclusionist. The inclusionist/non-inclusionist divide is as old as Wikipedia and you are not going to make it vanish in any particular deletion discussion. It is also only logical that you cannot expect to persuade non-inclusionists by appeals to inclusionism. Wikipedia in general might be heading more towards inclusionism in topics like roads and counties, but it is heading away from inclusionism in biographies of living people. BLP1E is in some sense a formal rejection of inclusionism in a particular class of BLP articles, of which this article is a member, so you are swimming against the tide. I'm still confused by one thing. Even if I accept your argument that this proof is worth documenting, why document it with a biography? Biographies of living people are a tremendous source of trouble in Wikipedia, and in my opinion we have way too many of them. It's much better to document math proofs in math articles, not in biographies. Yes we should also get rid of the viral video articles but that discussion gets completely adrift of the AfD topic. You can leave me a talk message about it if you want. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make the debate vanish nor do I expect to persuade anyone. That debate is one of those important pillars that has kept Wikipedia afloat. I was just pointing out where I stand, mostly in reply to your point about why I seem to be 'obsessed' about this biography. But I disagree that I am swimming against the tide. Plenty of people have supported keeping the article on this page. Just because they are not debating doesn't mean they agree with your perspective of the tides direction of flow. I've already mentioned my point about the need to have this biography. He has done something quite notable, and only in a biography can we find more information about him like when he was born, where he got his education, what was his PhD thesis on, etc. Surely those points are not going to be included in a discussion on the history of the proofs on P=NP. - Aksi_great (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

But, just to make it clear where I stand - I think it is more important to document this proof/event in an article than to have an article on Vinay Deolalikar. If we don't then much interesting information will be lost from Wikipedia - like the leaking of the proof to scribd, subsequent blog post, admiration of the proof from Lipton and Cook, Anderson's 250k bet, the crowdsourcing efforts on Polymath, subsequent coverage by mainstream news organizations, and now the disappearance of the proof from his website - Aksi_great (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not wikipedia's job to preserve interesting information. We're not a blog. We're an encyclopedia. It's our job to preserve important information. Let somebody else chronicle the day-to-day minutia. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The polymath wiki[11] has a pretty exhaustive collection of all that material and we should probably link to it. It includes stuff that we can't put in WP directly because of verifiability requirements. Keep in mind that what you're expressing interest in is primarily a social internet phenomenon. I linked elsewhere to a description of a "mini-conference" held to look at a different incorrect P vs NP proof in the pre-internet 1990's, because of a similar level of excitement about that proof (until the error was found). Things haven't really changed, except for the technology. I somewhat sympathize with the desire to retain interesting math stuff but that doesn't work for more contentious topics like politics, which WP also has a lot of. That's one reason I'm not an inclusionist in general. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete - He has retracted the ill fated proof. If he fixes it, the page can be added later, but so far, this in not a notable person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.144.238 (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there some formal statement somewhere that the proof has been retracted? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Lipton asked the same thing in his blog comments. I'd expect if there were an emailed statement, Lipton would have received it, so my guess is there hasn't currently been a formal statement. The most recent version of the paper is from 8:21pm yesterday (not sure what time zone, I'm guessing western US). 75.62.4.94 (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• weak keep 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 WP:ACADEMIC 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. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The words "and certainly will meet it very soon" are an exact marker of a WP:CRYSTALBALL rationale. Again with no disrespect intended towards the subject, I'll believe it when I see it. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Not the same situation at all. It is not a CRYSTAL situation when you have subject matter experts saying that the proof is introducing new techniques that are going to matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I think you are overstating what the experts are predicting and you also have to consider the context. This poor sod has just done a ton of incredibly hard work that is in the process of being shot down. Yes of course it's worth seeing if some of the ideas can be re-used, and the experts are understandably mentioning that possibility, but it's way too early to tell (crystal ball) how it will actually play out. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong delete There will be plenty of time to write a proper article on the man after his proof has been vetted by a team of qualified peer reviewers. Until then, any notability is due to current media--actually, blog--speculation. Come on, this is Wikipedia, not Wikileaks. John Ralston Galt (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This work has been covered now by Nature, New Scientist and even non-science news sources. The idea that this is due to just "blog speculation" is inaccurate. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I think in this case the bloggers are more reliable than the news outlets, but that's besides the point. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete There is nothing on this page to establish notability. The P vs. NP claim is certainly not sufficient. Gsbsmith (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2010 (EST)

• Comment: In addition to Nature and New Scientist, Forbes also now has covered this. (not even counting several Indian media) The point is, is this enough not to be counted as 109 coverage? Also, what's the policy for pages with high viewer traffic? (the usual pageview tool has some problem, so I don't have numbers) SPat ^talk 04:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, the problem is that it is pretty much established the subject is a mostly ordinary subject in the field outside of it this (despite the early keep opinion which was shot down pretty well), and that nearly all these news reports refer to him on the side and focus on the problem instead and the ones that do use a ton of qualifiers like "may, might, allegedly" etc. - precisely because it hasn't been proven yet. Ryan Norton 14:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Iron-clad keep as a major 21st century hoax. Tkuvho (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

He makes Marvin Hewitt look like an amateur. Tkuvho (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think it is/was a hoax? Unlike Hewitt, Deolalikar is a bona fide academic and from what I could tell, the paper is/was a genuine attempt to solve the PvsNP problem, even if the proof turns out to be incorrect or is (has been?) withdrawn. Nsk92 (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps publicity stunt would have been a better word. The haste with which this has been circulated and the numerous "corrected" versions introduced since should dispel once and for all any analogies with Perelman's single arxiv posts. Tkuvho (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Changlin Wan's "proof" was a single arxiv post. And let's remember that D. made a limited circulation of this paper, during which someone leaked it. This doesn't scream "hoax" -- of course, that doesn't mean it is correct. 74.143.20.114 (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This was not a hoax. Just mistaken. Please do not throw that kind of accusation around. --99.245.206.188 (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Let me repeat what I said before. The most relevant consideration here is the WP:NOT policy, particularly its WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:CRYSTAL parts. Note by the way that WP:109PAPERS (which is more relevant here since it expounds on WP:NOT#NEWS) and WP:RECENT (which is less relevant) are just essays, not even guidelines, whereas WP:NOT 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 WP:NOT#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. Nsk92 (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on the technicalities of wiki regulations (but I think it is unlikely that this story will become a minor footnote). On the other hand, this has generated too much interest and there are too many "keeps" here to derail this any more. This will not be the first time "human interest" derails regulations, and it is hard to come up with a sufficient motivation to fight this tooth-and-nail. Tkuvho (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Err, I don't think I have been fighting "tooth-and-nail" here. Regarding the number of "keeps" - AfD is not a vote and the closing admin will not be simply counting votes. About the "wiki regulations" such as WP:NOT - to me they are not bureaucratic rules but rather important sets of basic philosophical principles of Wikipedia. Saying that we should ignore them for some particular "hot" newsstory is a bad idea - it sets a bad precedent and devalues those principles. About the footnote - I would also disagree with you. I remember that there has been quite a bit of short term coverage when Dunwoody announced his supposed proof of the Poincare conjecture - now that failed proof, even though it was put forward by a respected and notable mathematician, is no more than a footnote. Nsk92 (talk) 05:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nsk, I did not at all mean to imply that you are fighting "tooth-and-nail", nor that one should wantonly ignore wiki regulations (doing so would certainly create huge problems). I meant to say that in order to defeat this, one would have to do some determined fighting, for which people like you and me generally lack motivation. The probable outcome that this page is going to survive may be deplorable on policy grounds, but may just not be worth the fight given the intense interest it has generated. Tkuvho (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You write that you see WP:NOT, BLP1E, and other pleasingly-obscure hallmarks of Wikipedia insiderdom as being philosophical principles. However, the way in which you and others have rattled them off in support of your desire to delete this article has the whiff of obscurantist bureaucracy. If, indeed, there is a philosophical concern, our discussion will be better served by arguments than by legalistic citations. As it happens, I agree that we should consider the basic philosophical principles of Wikipedia, namely consensus. WP:NOT, BLP1E, and other alphabet soup notwithstanding, I believe, and I think that others do as well, that our users are better off having this page in its present and evolving form, precisely because of the unusually intense interest the topic has engendered. Angio (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Since when are BLP1E and WP:NOT "obscure hallmarks of Wikipedia insiderdom"?? Regarding the alphabet soup - if you read my comments immediately above, and earlier on in this AfD, I did not simply throw in a bunch of acronyms but tried to explain, at some length, why the specific principles behind them are relevant to this particular situation. Nsk92 (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ill-informed keeps count for little. This is not a vote (and there has been multiple voting). WP:Policy should prevail. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC).

The fact that that deleteion of this article is seriously in debate suggests to me that Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.119.153 (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete for now or at least park outside the article namespace. Notability is reached once the proof and its methods have been assessed (thoroughly) by the scientific community not before. Currently it is too much of a news ticker thing, i.e. for now it belongs to wikinews rather than here. Notability as a news media event may be another route even if the proof is not correct ("famous failed attempt"), but for that we need a widespread appearance in major mainstream media (and more than a short news note in them). So far that doesn't seem to be the case either.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep --Yoavd (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment If you want your !vote to be taken into account, you should provide a rationale. Mere opinions like this are likely to be ignored by any closing admin. --Crusio (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Added ref to longish article in Daily Telegraph (UK) article - Jamieson, Alastair (2010) Computer scientist Vinay Deolalikar claims to have solved maths riddle of P vs NP. Daily Telegraph UK, 11 Aug (Msrasnw (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

Trying hard to see the "longish" part but failing - it's the same news report, different paper :\. Yet another similar quote "His paper, posted online on Friday, is now being peer-reviewed by computer scientists." - i.e. nothing has happened yet and probably won't for some time. Ryan Norton 14:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Longish - Whole article of 500 words directly about the subject of our article - i.e. not just a passing mention. Sorry for my earlier lack of clarity (Msrasnw (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

Actually, it's pretty short and it is not about Deolalikar, but about the problem, with Deolalikar and his purported proof just mentioned in passing. --Crusio (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for mentioning longish - I should have just mentioned the word count - and sorry for saying the Telegraph article was about the subject of our Article - but I think the fact that our subject had his name in the headline of the article and three more times in the text is more than a passing mention. But clearly you are correct that the subject is Deolalikar's possible proof not Deolalikar alone. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

Keep: I think we need an article on Deolalikar even if his proof falls as people will want to know the story and notabiltiy - as evident by the buzz and reporting in reliable independent sources eg The Telegraph - seems to me assured. Also I imagine that the article is in demand (do we have any guidelines on whether we should have articles on things people are looking for?) On the talk page it suggest lots are looking at - but I don't know how to verify that. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

Comment the BBC now has an article - [Million dollar maths puzzle sparks row]. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

Still short copy/paste article with the usual quote of "If this is the case, Dr Deolalikar will be the first person to have proven that". Posting a bunch of similar sources in this particular cast may not help your debate, in fact it might hurt it :\. I'm sure basically "every" news agency has reported on the fact that he might have the solution to it and that it is current being reviewed, we've established that. See WP:BLP1E. Ryan Norton 15:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Certainly for the month, probably longer. I found the article useful at clearing up some confusion about the problem at hand and about the background of this particular scientist. Given time, the article will probably get more useful. -- ke4roh (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem "given time" - there's nothing there currently besides P/NP and a small ordinary bio (which just happens to be self-sourced atm). WP:ILIKEIT too, but there's not even a guideline debate here. Speaking of which, according to his site his final paper isn't even ready yet... making it a WP:CRYSTALBALL of a WP:CRYSTALBALL... seems like this whole thing is a nascent internet phenomenon (indeed, the HP site occasionally gives overloaded errors). I'd like to be convinced otherwise of course. Ryan Norton 17:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep for now. In any case I found the article useful. Prodego ^talk 19:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Keep as 3rd draft has been released, so it wasn't withdrawn after all. People were saying they were missing a response from Deolalikar, I guess the third draft is his response. 92.29.68.117 (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Neither of the last two votes is based on anything else than WP:ILIKEIT. --Crusio (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, several experts are becoming more skeptical, see Tao, Gowers. And none of this really matters in the discussion of Deolalikar's notability, though it may have bearing on whether or not to include information on a page about P?=NP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blowfish (talk • contribs) 20:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Subject fails WP:PROF, with an h-score of only 8. A not-yet-peer-reviewed supposed proof of P≠NP does not convey notability on the subject until it is picked up by reliable sources (in this context, academic journals, not press releases and blogs). Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Since Vinay's academic accomplishments, to date (which I checked), although commendable, have not been at the level of notability that should merit a Wikipedia article; and the proof has not been verified. Obviously, if the proof is verified, he gets a nice big article. For now, it suffices that his name is listed at P versus NP problem, under "Notable attempts at proof." But I agree: if the proof is not correct, Wikipedia has already damaged his reputation, and that is sad. I suggest that a policy be developed which would prevent another similar incident. Will anyone support me on that? Vegasprof (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I support you in principle but I am not sure how such a policy could be developed. The problem in this case lies with the judgement of the editors who created and advocated the BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC).

Keep. It doesn't matter if the proof has been verified or not. Kempe's proof of the four-color theorem was later invalidated, but he still has an article. A legitimate attempt is perhaps not as notable as an accepted proof, but it's still far more notable than a lot of the drivel that passes for articles these days. Karl Dickman ^talk 01:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised that a sysop is not aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and would use that as a keep argument. --Crusio (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously Kempe is not "other crap". However Blowfish and Sławomir Biały have outlined alread the differences between Kempe and Deolalikar. In other words the point here is merely that is conceivable that Deolalikar will turn into another Kempe. Note the future tense, all this argument provides is a reason for having an article on Deolalikar at sometime in the future, after he has indeed into a case like Kempe.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course Kempe is not "other crap", I was referring to the argument that "it's still far more notable than a lot of the drivel that passes for articles these days". Sorry for not being clearer. --Crusio (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Kempe seems to have a fair amount more to his credit than just a failed proof of the four color theorem. Someday, Deolalikar may meet the notability standard as well, but not yet. Blowfish (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: Kempe was a 19th-century mathematician who has gone on to the "inaccessible cardinal", which is to say that unlike the article under discussion, Kempe's biography is not subject to BLP1E. 67.122.209.167 (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Kempe was a Fellow of the Royal Society for whom there are multiple, mutually independent, biographical sources about his life and contributions to mathematics. The subject of the present article is a midlevel researcher at Hewlett-Packard, for whom there are no biographical sources. The comparison is totally specious. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep. I think simply reading this page provides enough evidence that this is something people care about. Hence to simply provide our NPOV we need to keep it. Dean P Foster (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep. This is getting alot of attention and coverage in third-party press. The question of the correctness of his P v. NP paper is not the question. The question is whether this person is notable enough to have an encyclopedia entry. HE is rapidly gaining notability, and based on the volume of sources such as this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7938238/Computer-scientist-Vinay-Deolalikar-claims-to-have-solved-maths-riddle-of-P-vs-NP.html I think he is notable enough to warrant an article here. Huadpe (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Can we keep this article as description of event rather than biography for now. It would be easy for all of us to agree that it is significant event because of vast media attention, attention of top researches and amount of twitter and buzz its generating. Even the amount of this discussion is enormous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.12.133 (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Delay the AfD until the proof is either accepted or rejected. I think that it is too soon to AfD this article. If the proof is accepted and the article is deleted, we will need to waste time at WP:DRV. If the proof is rejected, we can AfD the article afterwards. Jesse Viviano (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

1) There is zero chance of the proof being accepted anytime soon. Even if the proof was 100% airtight and correct, the vetting process would take months. 2) In fact things are looking bad for the proof right now (see the polymath wiki). It will be pretty surprising if the author can turn it around. Obviously if that does happen we can revisit the situation. 67.122.209.167 (talk) (formerly 75.62.4.94) 07:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The comment by Jesse Viviano clearly demonstrates how much this is a WP:ONEEVENT. The whole proof, at this point, is a footnote in the article about the mathematical problem, at most. In any case, not necessary to go to DRV if ever the proof (several months from now) gets generally accepted. The article can be deleted without prejudice. If it gets re-created too soon, though, we'll be back here at AfD. Meanwhile, could any people coming to this vote now please read WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:ONEEVENT before !voting? --Crusio (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC) --Crusio (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Unless every single bit of this proof is wrong it is a very good contribution to the problem even if proven wrong in the end. This article isn't "valid proof P does not equal NP" it is changing and people want to see it, the only reason that anyone would want it deleted is that they think the article is good only based on weather there is not a single flaw in the proof. It would be ridiculous to delete something because it may or may not be 100% right, when obviously it is at least 90% with many new ideas or it would ave been disprove days ago. Zamadatix (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• comment Zamadatix, nobody denies that this may be a valuable contribution. However, valuable does not necessary equal notable. When people write that if the proof turns out to be correct, Deolikar will be notable, they mean that if the proof is correct, so much will be written about it (and about the guy who pulled it off), that he'll be notable (in the WP sense). As it is, he's not (and the proof attempt is not). --Crusio (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep even if this turns out to be a hoax/flawed he has garnered sufficient notabilioty by his Claim. the merits of the claim are irrelevant to establishing his notability. otherwise Milli Vanilli wouldn't have an article.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: If you want to use page hits as an argument, [12] would be more reliable than guessing based on Google's hidden counter. It is getting 10's of thousands of hits per day which, by math standards, is huge. I'm thinking that WP:PROF isn't really applicable here, but given the coverage in Slashdot and PC World, WP:GNG is.--RDBury (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete (or Merge to P=NP) - It is obvious this article is really about The Alleged Proof. (And, as the article now indicates, the proof is incorrect as stands, and most likely incorrect even with major fixes, though perhaps still interesting.) The article doesn't have much to say about the person, and, as the nominator notes, the person did not seek publicity. --192.75.48.150 (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep certainly notable. BBC article as indicated by others. --CarTick 02:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per Crusio. This is news, and the focus is the paper, not the author. The paper doesn't even warrant a mention on P≟NP yet as this is a flash in the pan, and not first. yawn. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as it hits a peculiar problem on WP - does WP exist to answer questions for people seeking answers about a person or topic, or should WP posit that even where people are searching for answers, that WP has a better handle on "notability"? In the case at hand, the person in this BLP is notable - being substantially in the current news (news articles on the current proposed proof) but also cited in mathematical articles [13], and author of a number of articles [14] etc. So we have prior notability in mathematics and computer science, and a current newsworthy issue. Frankly, were this a "one off" type of item, I could see deletion, but it appears to be of somewhat longer lasting notability at this point. Hoi polloi have spoken - this is sufficiently notable. Collect (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to P versus NP problem#Notable attempts at proof. --Petter (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:IAR. 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. --Salix (talk): 13:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I love IAR. So yeah, never mind the general issue of Notability, is this particular case an improvement? We could have something in the P=NP article discussing the proof, and the fact that it was made by one Vinay Deolalikar, senior scientist and published mathematician etc. (These facts about him, after all, are largely why the proof got attention in the first place.) Do we need more personal info about Deolalikar? What do we have? Just some bits of info we got from his personal page at HP Labs. I don't expect any other reliable biographical source to exist. So, I don't see the service to our dear readers. --192.75.48.150 (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Merge into P versus NP problem as the focus of the coverage seems to be the putative proof rather than the person. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as the bio fails WP:PROF and the "scandal" is not notable enough to justify an article, the basic information about temporary press interest can be Merged to P≟NP. Fæ (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• IAR Keep per Salix and Collect. It seems 85.000 people looked at this article for an answer on the question "who is Vinay Deolalikar?". This alone should be kept in mind. If our notability and bio rules make it impossible to provide a service to our readers by giving encyclopedic information on such widely requested subjects, it's our rules fault. A merge of the proof part into P versus NP problem is more than OK, but it wouldn't answer questions on who is Deolalikar. --Cyclopia^talk 16:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to P versus NP problem with the understanding that this can be spun out in the unlikely event that the proof is valid or he becomes historically notable for this attempt. ThemFromSpace 17:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment re page views: 1) 85k page views != 85k people. I've probably viewed the page 100 times in the course of editing it and watching this afd. 2) person viewing page != person wants to know who Vinay D. is. They want to know what's going in with the proof, where "it turned out to be wrong" is really all they want to know. A sentence in the P vs NP article is enough for that. 3) Rationales based on page views are just another version of BLP1E or 109PAPERS. This proof attempt was a nice try but will be forgotten soon, so WP:NOTNEWS. 4) WP shouldn't be disclosing page view stats anyway, on privacy and other grounds. (Yeah I know they don't personally identify viewers, but they are creepy and invasive anyway, and can be used for nefarious purposes. There are a number of WP articles that I refuse to read online because of them). So they should never be allowed to influence editorial decisions. 67.122.209.167 (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Ironically, it might have been premature to propose deletion also. Had the proposal opened today instead of Monday, I bet there would be much less objection. --192.75.48.150 (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Possibly true, but I can't help but wonder if some of the news coverage exists partly because the presence of a WP article convinced the reporter that the topic was worth writing about (not just with this article but many others). It's not for us to decide such things, so it's better to get the deletion ball rolling sooner rather than later. 67.122.209.167 (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • You don't even have to wonder: before CSD G11 existed, promotional articles would barely skate past CSD barriers and get immediate coverage simply due to being on wikipedia four years ago. It made deletion patrol a bit of a nightmare and there would be countless AFDs with a lot of people not knowing how to track articles back to WP; so articles, especially on people and companies that were purely promotional but had dubious claims to fame would have to go through several AFDs and related before they finally deleted. Back to this topic, the proof is all but dead; it wasn't even the first either. It got a lot of instant coverage likely due to being leaked to slashdot and wikipedia early. In any normal circumstance, it would be a clear delete. Ryan Norton 06:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep since there is a significant coverage in many independent reliable sources this passes WP:N. A one event is certainly allowed to be kept, and if the essay makes people think that pages should be deleted, it may be time to modify it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Graeme, BLP1E is part of WP:Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) which is not an "essay", it's (supposedly) the most rigorously enforced content policy in all of Wikipedia. Yes, WP:BLP is constantly being modified; but in general, the modifications are towards higher rather than lower levels of consideration for BLP article subjects. Your proposed modification goes in the opposite direction from the way WP practice in this area is (rightly) evolving. WP is not a tabloid and we're not here to feed voyeurism. Some people here called for a 1E exception based on a hope/expectation that the P!=NP proof would turn out to be correct or otherwise mathematically valuable, which would have been nice but didn't happen. That's a bogus rationale (the bogosity is why we have WP:CRYSTALBALL) but at least it's an attempt at supplying one. IMO, it's much more disturbing that so many are basically saying we should keep any biography we can source, without expressing any consideration at all for the person we're imposing the article on. We are supposed to have thoroughly abandoned that approach, which I see as basically a paparazzi impulse that doesn't belong here. Folks, please try to be a little bit more sensitive to this issue. 67.122.209.167 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. It appears that the proof has fallen through [15][16][17][18]. According to Aug 13 column by Scott Aaronson in MIT Technology Review[19], "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 thing[20]. I think this rather negates IAR arguments urging us to wait and to ignore WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BLP1E 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. Nsk92 (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

comment: most of them are now no more than historical footnotes: in my view wikipedia is (and should be) useful for help just such footnotes. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC))

It may be appropriate to add a mention of Deolalikar's claim, with a few footnotes, to P versus NP problem article - but that hardly justifies having a full bio article about him at this point. Nsk92 (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Merge. It is about 99% by now, that the proof is not correct. From the moment it becomes 100% (likely when Deolalikar himself admits failure) the currently impressive viewing numbers will sharply decline and within 1-2 weeks there will be likely no more significant interest for the subject at all. In my opinion 2-3 sentences of detailing the story (Deolalikar's claim + major newspapers covered the story + review process on the internet by fellow mathematicians + proof failed) will be way enough on the P-NP page. Gruen (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Maybe notable per WP:EFFECT ? 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 [21]. Maybe it could be renamed to Deolalikar P vs NP paper, like the external Wiki? Abeer.ag (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:EFFECT is apparently for things set a precedent of some kind. All this is what happens when instant news reports + slashdot + wikipedia collide. That's it, and this wasn't even the first attempt, just the first attempt that got coverage because the subject had a serious lack of good judgement when deciding who to send the papers to. Also, proofs have been analyzed for quite some time on the Internet, wikis or otherwise. The rename would be a "bad" content fork of the original P/NP article, which saw fit to only put a couple of sentences of this mess in the article. Ryan Norton 18:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • No, thanks. WP:EFFECT is a subguideline of WP:N while WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS are policies. The lasting effect that WP:EFFECT is asking for can only be demonstrated after a significant passage of time. The newscoverage of the event has, not surprisingly, already tapered off. If there are still instances of significant and detailed coverage of this event a year or so from now, a separate article about the event (but not a biography) might become appropriate then. For now this is still in the WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS territory. A few sentences of mention of the episode in P versus NP problem is the most that is appropriate at this stage. Nsk92 (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • We should probably write a standalone article about the Polymath project sometime (right now it redirects to a section of its founder's biography). That would be a good place to include something about the collaborative analysis of this proof attempt. It doesn't really belong in the P=NP article beyond a brief mention, and the Deolalikar biography is still inappropriate. 67.122.209.167 (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Clearly notable scientist who has become famous in the scientific, geek and nerd communities worldwide and to some extent the general public for making an attempt at a proof of P!=NP. Outside the fact he made an attempt at the proof, the man is now famous and that satisfies WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Having produced an incorrect proof of something does not make one academically notable or famous. It can result in 15 minutes of fame but that is not the same as lasting notability. As for WP:BIO, you should really look up WP:BIO1E, as well as WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Nsk92 (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A notable scientist and the article is very significant and contains many reliable sources. IainUK talk 01:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • You can take any news-story, that flashes over the news for a few days and then quickly disappears, and say the same thing - that there are "many reliable sources". That does not make a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article, per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Nsk92 (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, he seems notable enough to me, and more importantly having this article makes for a better encyclopedia. Paul August ☎ 01:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the New York Times just published this interesting article. Paul August ☎ 01:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, NYT, being a more conservative and deliberative newspaper, is among the last to write about this story. But here is what it said at the end: "At this point the consensus is that there are large holes in the alleged proof — in fact, large enough that people do not consider the alleged proof to be a proof,” Dr. Vardi said. “I think Deolalikar got his 15 minutes of fame, but at this point the excitement has subsided and the skepticism is turning into negative conviction.” Getting "15 minutes of fame" is exactly what WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E have in mind. Nsk92 (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment Whether he deserves it or not, there is no doubt he has generated much publicity. Even if it turned out he was not successful, I would not like to see the article deleted, because I still think we would be letting down a lot of people who will research him. IainUK talk 07:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable, 15 minutes of fame does not merit his inclusion on Wikipedia. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 09:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Move to Vinay Deolalikar P ≠ NP Proof Attempt At present, this article primarily documents the proof attempt, which is a a notable event due to coverage from the NY Times, New Scientist, etc. The article doesn't establish WP:Notability_(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). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  The fact that for a few days there has been quite a bit of coverage of this story in the newsmedia still does not make it a notable event and does not yet take it out of WP:NOT#NEWS territory. In fact, if the past experience is any indication, an incorrect claim to prove something or other usually quickly fades from memory and becomes no more than a historical footnote. If there are still instances of specific and detailed coverage of this story 6-12 months from now, an article about the event may become appropriate then. Nsk92 (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - clearly, as of now, this is a WP:BLP1E 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.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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.