Purge server cache
- 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 no consensus, by both vote count and argument-weighting. That said, there is a fair consensus that the article is in need of a good amount of work again, and such work will be necessary to avoid future deletion discussions. Best regards to all, and thanks especially for a largely civil discussion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Art student scam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was nominated on deletion on 4/3/2010. It was kept as "no consensus", and only because it was "rewritten intensely" according to the closing administrator. Now it was rewritten once again, and it is back to it's problematic form. This article is not encyclopedic, because it is a collection of rumors that were strongly denied by the officials. Nobody ever got convicted in any "spying" cases mentioned in the article. Part of a renewed article represents just another 9/11 and spying conspiracy theory that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article that apparently is "Art student scam". Broccoli (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete: Article reads like a tabloid rather than an encyclopedia--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article is the perfect description of WP:SYNTH. A number of different unconnected articles are brought together to create a concept. Any possible redeeming factor is outweighed by the fact that this article is hijacked by editors who do nothing else on Wikipedia but point out any possible misdeeds done by Jews and Israelis. When they run out of reliably sourced misdeeds, they make up new misdeeds.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as before. I believe that the closing administrator of the previous AfD was right in giving it a chance, since the trimmed "globalized" version of the article was fairly balanced and neutral. However, it is clear that we can only make this a good article in theory, while in practice there is always going to be a number of editors who will make a gargantuan effort to rewrite the article in their vision (which is not neutral, suffers from extreme undue weight and synthesis). There doesn't seem to be any solution at this point other than deletion. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. What a mess. The few lines about petty scams serve as a tiny rack for what's essentially a huge NPOV coat, and Bc's point about SYNTH is right on. PhGustaf (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the topic itself is notable as evidenced by the sources and the fact that an article, perhaps not this current version, had support as a notable topic. If there are issues with specific content those can be worked out through the normal channels. If the people here have a problem with specific content failing to abide by Wikipedia policies they should first try to go to the relevant noticeboard or open an RFC. Deletion is not one of the channels that are to be used with such issues. The topic of an art student scam is notable, which is the only thing that matters at AFD. SYNTH issues should be taken to the OR noticeboard and POV issues to the NPOV noticeboard. That or opening an RFC. nableezy - 18:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per well-said rationale of Ynhockey.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable subject, as shown by extensive coverage by all the major US news services as well as some in Britain, based on field reports by numerous US government agency employees. We do not delete an article related to some supposed conspiracy or scam just because some government official announces there is nothing to it. It is in the nature of government spokesmen to avoid offending friendly nations. We do not delete an article about a notable subject because it offends some editors. Deletion is not a substitute for editing when the subject is clearly notable. Edison (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Ynhockey and brewcrewer. Nableezy, a quote from WP:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position: "Wikipedia does not publish original research", so if SYNTH applies, which has been argued for convincingly, deletion is not up for debate. Edison, even if the topic of a synthesized WP entry should be notable it must not be published. --tickle me 19:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If a topic is notable there is no cause for deletion. If there is a version of this article that people felt was notable and met Wikipedia content policies this article should not be deleted. Such a version exists (e.g. this). We fix articles that are notable but fail content policies such as NPOV or NOR. Whether the topic itself is notable is what counts at an AfD. nableezy - 20:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- > a version .... that people felt was notable ... Such a version exists
- when and by whom has that been decided? --tickle me 20:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the first AfD? Many of the users who had voted to delete changed their vote after the article was rewritten. nableezy - 20:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that "no consensus" was reached, so that doesn't seem to be a strong case for notability. --tickle me 07:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read what I wrote? I wrote that many people, including the original nominator of the AfD, changed their vote to a keep based on the rewrite. Read the closing statement. They [the changes made in the rewrite] have also caused some, including the nominator, to change their opinion from "delete" to solutions that do not require deletion (see the section "Article rewritten", below). Notably, no new "delete" opinion has been registered after the end of the rewrite. Also, most of the "delete" opinions are not because of perceived problems with the topic as such (e.g., non-notability), but rather because of perceived flaws in the article content (such as fringe, coatrack, synthesis, etc.). The delete votes here suffer from the same flaw as those there, that people dislike the content or feel it is SYNTH or a COATRACK of OR. Fine, fix the problem. Notability is the determining factor for whether or not an article is deleted. The AfD is being used because people are unwilling to deal with the normal procedure for solving a content dispute. That is what this is, not a discussion on the actual notability of the topic, which is what AfD is supposedly about, but rather people object to specific content in an otherwise notable article. We dont delete notable articles because some of the content fails OR or NPOV or whatever else, we fix those problems. nableezy - 16:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020307&slug=notspies07 washington post, this was written before many of the other articles and is the only one to claim to dismiss the allegations, however; the post admitted to not bothering to obtain the 60 pg. Dea document
Preciseaccuracy (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteI think both the spy story and con are notable and could get separate articles. However, this one is too far gone to be fixable in the near future. Variables including what the scope actually is still need to be addressed. And the original version (which this one is similar to) did not have enough support to keep during the last AfD. I lean towards deletion and editors writing up some drafts before it goes live in the main space.Cptnono (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a very notable article that is well sourced. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And notability is not the concern here. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion: "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". Namely points 1 and 2 (WP:NOTADVOCATE and the rest). There is so much soapboxing, pushing of opinions on the subject (or at least one of the two subjects), and lack of presenting the information in an appropriate tone that it is not appropriate in the main space. We have had our chance and failed. Time to remove it and start from scratch. Wikipedia:Article Incubator might be a good start. Merging some of the information into another article (specific to the spying or Israeli espionage in the United States/Mossad might be an option. Cptnono (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Return to sane state and keep. The scam itself is borderline notable even without the conspiracy theory. In my opinion Wikipedia is able to deal with the conspiracy nonsense adequately, and the best place to do so is as a side remark in article on the scam in general. We generally don't delete articles just because they are POV pushing or conspiracy theorist magnets. Full protection in a sane state that reflects the consensus of the last AfD may be a good idea, though. Hans Adler 22:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete The thing is that this does not work like that,Hans Adler. That article was quite for some time, but then a single article account came about, and started pushing her agenda on each and every noticeboard she was able to find. If the article is returned back "to sane state" as you're suggesting, sooner or later (rather sooner than later) there will be tries to make it look as tabloid yesterday gossips once again. Wikipedia will only benefit, if that so called article is deleted and forgotten. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Below is the version of the article before I started editing. What mbz1 has referred to as "fine" and a "sane state." Keep in mind, this article had originally been about Israeli spying allegations, the focus, however, had been completely twisted from being about the spying allegations to being about an unrelated chinese tourist trap. The article was basically whitewashed of referrences to Israel and mention of the inconclusive allegations was pushed to the bottom of the page where the spying was unequivically stated to be an "urban myth" without qualification despite numerous reliable sources pointing toward the, at the very least, inconclusive nature of the allegations.
Preciseaccuracy (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Preciseaccuracy (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a classic case of "man bites dog" being reported widely and in detail because it sells newspapers, and the subsequent "um, no, the man didn't so much bite as beat the dog" getting much less space because it's much less interesting.
- That often happens with conspiracy theories. They are reported more widely than their refutations because they are more interesting and appealing than their refutations.
- It is important that Wikipedia covers notable conspiracy theories (such as this one), because we have the luxury of not having to sell papers. We can get things write, based on an intelligent evaluation of the sources. In this case the later reports make it clear that the earlier reports were erroneous/misleading, and we need an article which reflects this. Hans Adler 16:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's what administrator AliveFreeHappy said about the article's sources "Sources on a simple google search seem to say that the supposed DEA report in question is in and of itself not real - it was produced by a disgruntled DEA employee who planted the story.", and another quote by the same user: "Be assured that I have read what you've linked to and I appreciate the effort you put into it, but I don't reach the same conclusion that you do."--Mbz1 (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user above Alivefreehappy is strange, he claims that there is an "overwhelming body of evidence" that denounces this as a myth, but refuses to provide the links. The Sunday Herald wrote about this in 2003, two years later in a very serious manner. The second forward article was written in 2004 and treats spying on the u.s. in 2001 as inconclusive. Haaretz,the Forward, the Sunday Herald, Janes Intelligence, Insight, Salon, the Newspaper Creative Loafing, Democracy Now all came after the post claimed to "debunk" this and all treated spying allegations as inconclusive and not a myth. The washington post didn't even bother to obtain the dea document.
With regards to the dea document
"To someone not familiar with the 60-page DEA memo, or to reporters who didn't bother to obtain it, the fact that a disgruntled employee leaked a memo he wrote himself might seem like decisive proof that the whole "art student" tale was a canard. In reality, the nature of the memo makes its authorship irrelevant. The memo is a compilation of field reports by dozens of named agents and officials from DEA offices across America. It contains the names, passport numbers, addresses, and in some cases the military ID numbers of the Israelis who were questioned by federal authorities. Pointing a finger at the author is like blaming a bank robbery on the desk sergeant who took down the names of the robbers.
Of course, the agent (or agents) who wrote the memo could also have fabricated or embellished the field reports. That does not seem to have been the case. Salon contacted more than a half-dozen agents identified in the memo. One agent said she had been visited six times at her home by "art students." None of the agents wished to be named, and very few were willing to speak at length, but all confirmed the veracity of the information."
"
Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly the only one, who is strange (to say the least) is you, so called "Preciseaccuracy". It is you, who is a single article account, it is you, who keeps jumping from board to board, from talk page to talk page, and pushing, pushing, pushing the users to promote the article. I believe accounts like yours with conduct as yours should be topic banned for that single article you are so interested in for your own good because there were some days, when you took only four hours break in your never ending trying to promote that article, and to defame everybody, who disagrees with you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Articles like this harm the wikipedia. Encyclopedia articles should be generic pieces, not laced with speculation. I saw the original 'generic article and it was fine, but until the whole conspiracy section was put in making it nonsense. --Luckymelon (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please look here Band of users coordinating to delete reliably sourced article on inconclusive espionage allegations, external input requested. I do not know, if this article will get deleted, or not, but the user should be topic banned.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo Wales page is the most neutral on wikipedia. It is clear what is going on here. A group of users pass through and do drive by delete votes. You are using this page as a weapon to delete reliably sourced content.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- it meets WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Many of the deletes are applying the wrong criteria. NPOV and COATRACK are not really basis for deletion, they're basis for improving the article. Seems there is slow-burning edit war over POV, but that is not a reason to delete the article. Minor4th 19:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not the only basis for deletion. Please see my comments above referring directly to the deletion policy.Cptnono (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So many accounts saying "Its not about notability, but rather IDONTLIKEIT." Thus they agree it is a notable subject. Edison (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Lucky. This article looks way too much like a platform for some nasty, fringe, non-notable OR conspiracy-mongering. IronDuke 23:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Ynhockey and Mbz1 Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep and restore to its "sane state" per Hans Adler. I appreciate Cptnono's point of view, and it would certainly be easier on all of us to just delete the article, but I'm not eager to delete verifiable, at least marginally noteworthy subject matter (as reflected in the judicious version that Hans Adler produced during the prior AfD) because of specific editorial problems that could be addressed in a more direct way.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. The topic is notable and supported by many reliable sources that mention "Israeli art scam" or "art scam" in the article headlines, not as some incidental comparison. AfD is not a way to deal with some edits you don't agree with. Revert it to the last version that survived an AfD if you like (which the nominator didn't sound like he found to be deletable) - argue out the details on the talk page or in mediation, but don't settle content disputes by mutual assured destruction. Wnt (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The last version had been whitewashed and the focus had strangely shifted from being about spying allegations in the u.s. to an almost unnotable chinese tourist trap. mention of the inconclusive allegations was pushed to the bottom of the page where the spying was unequivically stated to be an "urban myth" without qualification despite numerous reliable sources pointing toward the, at the very least, inconclusive nature of the allegations.
- see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250
Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean to endorse a particular version, but only to emphasize that this is a content dispute, and your opponents have a very straightforward remedy available to them that doesn't involve deletion. Wnt (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - (Disgraceful Preciseaccuracy conspiracy theories/Jimbo canvassing aside), the topic is for sure notable as shown by coverage by multiple RS. None of the arguments given for deletion seem to comply with our deletion policy which requires us not to delete if something can be fixed by editing. Which is certainly the case here, as the very nominator and delete !votes agree. --Cyclopiatalk 00:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder, if users, who voted to keep bothered to read the links I provided about the opinion of the administrator, who has done research on the sources provided by Preciseaccuracy on the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard by her request? Here's one more time: Administrator AliveFreeHappy said about the article's sources "Sources on a simple google search seem to say that the supposed DEA report in question is in and of itself not real - it was produced by a disgruntled DEA employee who planted the story.". There's nothing to be fixed there. That article is a disgrace and should be deleted. Here's the document that describes 9/11 conspiracy theories involving Jews and Israelis including the story about art students scam see page 18. The name of the document is: "Unraveling Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories" So, the question is: should an article that is yet another Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theory be kept on Wikipedia? The answer is: No! --Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not saying that the allegations are true. I am saying that they are notable. should an article that is yet another Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theory be kept on Wikipedia? The answer is: yes, if it is a notable conspiracy theory. --Cyclopiatalk 01:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, but then it should be written as it is in the document I linked to. It should be added to the right categories, while taking out of the wrong ones. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is OK but it has nothing to do with article deletion, since it can (and should) be dealt with editing. --Cyclopiatalk 01:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I assume that you would not mind changing the name of the article with accordance to the name of the document I linked to (Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Art students spying ring), just to call the things with their real names, you know.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your twisting the argument mbz1, this article is about spying allegations, not 9/11 conspiracy theories or urban myths.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your twisting the argument PA, this article is about a con, not spying allegations. That was done according to consensus. But if it were about spying allegations then it being called a myth (which I did adjust per your argument) and the 9/11 conspiracy theory is part of it.Cptnono (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That wasn't done by consensus. As fences said ". And we are not bound by what people argued at that AfD; many of the deletion arguments were based simply on WP:INDONTLIKEIT. The arguments that attempt to dismiss this as a "conspiracy theory" and brush it under the carpet should not be given weight. The spying allegations are what really made this scam notable; it barely scrapes notability without it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Art_student_scam&diff=376834714&oldid=376830608
Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Mbz1, you're referring to Haaretz and The Forward as bastions of antisemitism? Your reliable source is the adl, a political organization that claims to fight defamation but is currently trying to get a muslim mosque banned from new york?
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243
Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am quoting the RS document I linked to.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The adl is a pro-israeli-advocacy group. Of course they are going to deny the allegations that Israel was spying on the United States. The other sources refer to the spying allegations as inconclusive. The guardian, telegraph, sunday herald, haaretz, the Forward ect. are not outlets for antisemitism. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to push any conspiracy theories. The inconclusive allegations shouldn't be referred to by the derogatory version of the word conspiracy theory. The sources treat the spying allegations in a very serious manner and at the very least as inconclusive. but once again this is what the wikipedia article looked like before I began editing, an article about spying allegations had been twisted to being an article about a chinese tourist trap where the allegations were described as an urban myth without any qualifiation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250
Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's altogether too much thinking going on here. This is Wikipedia, where very basic logical deductions are liable to be denounced as "original research". AfD is not supposed to be some kind of star chamber where people figure out Which Side Is Right, what is the True Truth, or how paranoid is too paranoid. Wnt (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The adl is referring to Haaretz and the Forward as outlets for conspiracies?
Take this quote from Haaretz describing Washington post article.
"Even this report was not enough to finally kill off the affair. Two weeks later, the New York Jewish weekly, Forward, published a report connecting the spy affair with the arrest in New Jersey, on September 11, of five Israelis whose behavior was defined as suspicious. The five were employed by a moving company and did not have valid work permits. According to Forward, the FBI concluded that the five were on a spy mission on behalf of the Mossad, and that the moving company was nothing more than a front. This story also died out quietly."
Preciseaccuracy (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Definite Keep The subject at hand appears to definitely be notable and i'm really not seeing WP:SYNTH happening here, as conglomerating different examples of things that are labeled art scams (involving supposed art students) isn't synthesizing anything at all. The separate instances are clearly shown to be involving the main topic. SilverserenC 04:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article seems to be much better sourced than most Wikipedia articles... its is loaded with references. The NPOV tag seems, to me, to be politically motivated, perhaps someone doesn't like it... in any case, we should never delete such thoroughly sourced articles. The section about the alleged Israeli spy ring should probably be moved to a separate article, since it's not really about an art scam per se. After it is moved, it probably ought to be added to the list of Israel\Palestine articles under the I/P General Sanction. Kindzmarauli (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The espionage allegations are very much related to the art scam because that scam was carried out on such a huge scale that it caused the conspiracy theory. They were reported by some major papers, but only by a few and only temporarily. Treating them as minor matter in the context of the ongoing scam is perfectly adequate and gives them just the right weight, even though the conspiracy theorists obviously don't like it. Hans Adler 12:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop calling it a conspiracy theory. You're poisoning the well. This is entirely from mainstream sources reporting what they were told by the DEA and other government sources. Just because you think it's a conspiracy theory doesn't make it one. Fences&Windows 13:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop saying somebody is poisoning the well. It is a conspiracy theory blown out of the proportions by a sensation hungry media, who is always ready to go after an easy target, one of the smallest countries in the world.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have to agree with Fences and windows. This does not appear to be a conspiracy theory as the allegations are established by US Federal Govt. Agencies. This satisfies the Verifiability policy. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? That is the issue here. This conspiracy theory has been picked from a bunch of sources and this article virtually turned into a glorified post at rense.com. --Luckymelon (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fences and Windows: No, I won't stop calling it a conspiracy theory because by sorting all sources I could find at the time of the first AfD chronologically I came to the conclusion that it is a conspiracy theory. The original suspicions were of very poor quality and were misrepresented in early reports in December 2001, near the climax of "security" hysteria. This easily explains the otherwise strange fact that a small number of reputable media reported these suspicions but most of them completely ignored them. When journalists can't confirm a story they are supposed to shut up, and in most though not all cases this seems to have worked.
- The "DEA report" that started everything can be found here: [25]. The incidents reported there are entirely consistent with widespread criminal operations targeting wealthy neighbourhoods and offices of well-paying employers. Some highlights from that report:
- "Another incident involved an Israeli art student who attempted to sell paintings at the residence of S/A Michael Durr in Flower Mound, Texas, on March 25, 2001 at approximately 17:30. S/A Durr was slightly delayed and when he opened the door the art student had already departed and was approaching another house. S/A Durr called the Flower Mound police department, which responded. The art student was identified as David SUSI, W/M, DOB 01/09/1975, who was staying at an unspecified location in Irving, Texas. The student was not detained."
- "one of the Israelis (not identified in the report) stated that five individuals in Israel were responsible for recruiting Israeli nationals to come to the U.S. for the purpose of selling art door-to-door. The detainee identified "ITAY' who lives in California, (subsequently identified as Itay SIMON), as the direct link between the five persons in Israel, and the U.S. operation. The detainee stated that the Texas contact for the organization is "Michael", who lives in the Dallas area and drives a black Jeep. The detainee stated that Michael (CALMANOVIC), is subordinate in the art-vending scheme to Itay (SIMON)."
- "BEN DOR stated he works for NICE, a software engineering company in Israel. BEN DOR stated he served in the Israeli military on a unit that was responsible for Patriot missile defense. During a search of BEN DOR's luggage a printout from a Windows readme file named "WinPOS-53-readme" was found that has some reference to a file named 'DEA Groups'." (NOTE: RWE Dea AG, formerly DEA, is a reference customer for a product that includes the WinPOS point of sales software. See also NICE Systems.)
- "A Vehicle Technician at the Detroit Division reported that during the fall of 2000, a female appearing to be either Jewish or Arabic in her twenties visited her home in Southfield, Kentucky in an attempt to sell her artwork. The Vehicle Technician declined to purchase any paintings and the female left. The Vehicle Technician said it appeared the female was going door to door."
- "On Wednesday April 2, 2001 at approximately 8:00 PM one of two individuals rang the doorbell of the residence of a DEA Special Agent Wayne Schmidt in Duarte, California. Upon answering the door, the S/A observed the two individuals walking away from the residence and walking toward an adjoining neighbor's residence. Upon exiting the residence, the S/A observed that both individuals, a male and a female, were at the neighbor's front door and stated that they were "Israeli art students", The neighbor advised them she was not interested and both left the area walking south on foot." (A detailed explanation of fruitless DEA activity follows.)
- So these spies apparently went to the trouble of seeking out the homes of random DEA staff, rang their doorbells, but in several instances didn't have the patience to wait for someone to open, instead proceeding to other potential scam victims. Maybe the following is the best illustration of the extent of the totally unprofessional hysteria:
- "Aran OFEK stated that his father was a retired two-star general in the Israeli Army. (NFI). (ISP note: Israel recently launched its 5th spy satellite, identified as the OFEK 5. It is unknown if the name of the satellite and these persons is related.) "
- "ISP" appears elsewhere in the document and seems to refer to "InternalSecurity Program". "Ofek" is Hebew for "horizon". (I had to remove a link to a site on Hebrew names because it is blacklisted. It's the first Google hit for Hebrew+Ofek.)
- This is how it all started, and based on that it's not surprising at all that DEA officials later said there is nothing to see here, and that the reporting in reputable media simply stopped. The matter has since been embellished further and has become an example of an antisemitic 9/11 conspiracy theory in several books I foundon Google Books. Hans Adler 14:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm frankly disgusted at this nomination, these editors are POV pushing to ridiculous lengths. The attempts to sweep this incident under the carpet are blatant attempts at political censorship. They failed to label this as mere gossip and to keep articles like that from Salon out of the article, so they want to delete it. This is obviously notable, it gained substantial coverage in multiple sources over an extended period. The claim that this is simply conspiracy-mongering is a total misreading of the sources. This is not an "anti-semitic 9/11 conspiracy theory" (nice use of the label "anti-semitic" to try to sway this), it is an account of a scam (called the "Israeli art student scam" by most sources except Wikipedia), and how this scam might have been used as cover for an espionage operation. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion, but that's all the deletion arguments amount to. You simply don't like something that possibly reflects poorly on Israel. If it had been Iran or China accused of this you'd not be arguing for deletion. Fences&Windows 13:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is no small irony that the purported 9/11 connection information was inserted by one of the editors who now wants the whole thing deleted. The article seems well sourced and seems to establish a notable series of events, other perceived issues can be resolved through collaborative editing. Unomi (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Cptnono and ynhockey and WP:SNYTH. Perfect example of how one editor can hijack WP by grabbing bits and pieces, sourced albeit, and write a piece that does not appear anywhere else. If this really was worthy of an article, three sentences would be needed to summarize points from these sources, not building an article from nothing. --Shuki (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The nomination states no valid reasons for deletion, and there appear to be reliable sources to be cited, regardless of current article quality.--Milowent • talkblp-r 01:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We do not accommodate vandals. We should not delete an article just because vandals may "hijack" it in the future -- if we did that, we wouldn't have any articles at all. If a subject is notable (as this seems to be) it should be kept and any content disputes should be discussed on the article's talk page. If any sources are to be questioned, they should be questioned/discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard (which is being done). Perhaps it should be renamed, but that is another question entirely. Chickenmonkey 06:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article was ostensibly going to be re-written and now has reverted as a magnet for conspiracy theorists and propagandists. Its notability os questionable at best, missing at worst (see Mbz1's comments among others), has only been used to coatrack propagandists, and has not proven it is notable inits own right and that it can remain neutral. The prevelence of OR, well-poisoning, synthesis, etc. renders this article unfit for the encyclopedia. Avi (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the article may need some work, but the topic itself appears to be notable and reliably sourced. Gatoclass (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- no policy violation was cited in the nomination...this appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are sufficient reliable sources in the article to show notability. Also, as no one else has linked it: Wikipedia is not censored. I don't understand the purpose of deleting an article if it's not fully NPOV...it ought to be fixed...and deletion isn't the fix. It's unfortunate that its taking so much time from User:Preciseaccuracy to keep this article from going into the abyss of the memory hole. It does appear to be that there may be a cabal after the user...this is a most unwelcoming development.Smallman12q (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps some of the article should be forked to Israeli art student scam.Smallman12q (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - conspiracy coatrack, utter un-encyclopedic twaddle. Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete This is an unencyclopedic article and is simply being used by Israeli bashers to try to find another reason to bash. It is nothing but rumors and allegations. Actually I heard that these Israeli students were actually going door to door getting them to sign a petition claiming that falafels are Israeli and not Arab.
Then if the people refused to sign, they murdered them and stole their organs and sold them at high profits to Jews in Israel. KantElope (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Fences and windows. Problems with the article can be addressed other than by deletion. --John (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you suggest John, what problems do you see with the article as it is? Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Antisemitic canard another option is to move the spy-ring material to Antisemitic canard. This is what was done with a short-lived Whikpedia article accusing Isrelis of murdering victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake in order to harvest and sell their organs.AMuseo (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yesterday I contacted a public relation official from DEA. I asked her, if their agency knows anything about Israeli spies, who pretended to be art students. She sent me email, in which she said: "I have heard that this is false, an urban legend, and that none of this ever took place." How wikipedia could keep an article that is nothing by the gossips?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree... the article is only about the subject as presented by reliable sources and per WP:V, this is correct. Perhaps other news articles will appear stating that these stories were false or based on incorrect information, at which time we can update the article and rewrite it with the pertinent info. Wikipedia is not smearing any country or people as we are only presenting what has been reported by reliable sources. There is no anti-Israel conspiracy here. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course you are entailed to have your own opinion, as I am entailed to have mine. I know at least one user, who shares it. Few days Jimbo wrote wikipedia has anti-Israeli bias.
- About the substance. I agree there was some noise in the news, some of which were RS, about the incident, but later it was denied in the strongest terms possible, nobody ever got convicted. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Diff to Jimbo's comment? SilverserenC 18:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was awesome. I was about to ask him about the particulars but decided to leave it alone. He also isn't the glorious leader of Wikipedia so it doesn't mean that much. I believe it was on is talk page during the discussion the Preciseaccuracy started over there while shopping this issue around. Anyone recall exactly just so we don't have to go through a week of diffs?Cptnono (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The link to Jimbo's comment I was talking about: "if anything, we have a problem with anti-Israeli bias, not the other way around"--Mbz1 (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are misunderstanding his comment. What he meant was that both sides are biased and that it was just as likely for Wikipedia to have a "anti-Israeli bias" as it was for it to have a pro-Israeli bias. In truth, we have both, which is what makes our articles able to be neutral, as both sides have to come to compromises that show both sides, which is the definition of NPOV on Wikipedia. SilverserenC 20:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I am not going to argue with you about the meaning of the comment, but the link is here for everybody to see, and to make their own opinion what Jimbo meant. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably best. I don't see how Silver seren can read it that way but it doesn't matter that much anyways.Cptnono (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who cares what Jimbo meant? A "cursory look" forms his opinion. An opinion that can be demonstrated as false with a large number of examples. JIMBO SAID as an argument can best be summed up as "I dont have an argument". nableezy - 20:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as being a mish-mash of novel syntheses and trivial press reporting. When the trash is thrown out there's nothing left here. One sentence if we try hard. "Art student scam(s): scams by art students or persons purporting to be art students, for example (1) (2)". That could quite happily live in some other article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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)[reply]
- Vinay Deolalikar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • 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.[26][27][28][29] 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)[reply]
Delete: There are a few sources that could be considered notable: [30], [31], however, I think the problem is due to WP:NTEMP. Also withdrawing DYK nomination. SPat talk 16:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- (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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- (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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Keep for now. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The subject currently does not pass WP:PROF. Citability in GoogleScholar[32] 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)[reply]
Keep for now, as stated by AnonMoos. --Petter (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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).[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Strong Keep My vote is assuming that the information located at [33] 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- .... 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Keep - Multiple reliable third party sources about him and his purported proof. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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).[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Multiple voting is not allowed. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Comment Deolalikar appears to have removed the paper (revised version) and its description from his web site.[34] 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Delete as a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- It applies in full, including the words if and may. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Comment - More mentions of the proof - Livemint(another popular news network in India) and Nature. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The main resource for the history of failed P vs NP proof attempts is Woeginger's page[35] 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The polymath wiki[36] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Is there some formal statement somewhere that the proof has been retracted? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Iron-clad keep as a major 21st century hoax. Tkuvho (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He makes Marvin Hewitt look like an amateur. Tkuvho (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep --Yoavd (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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))[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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))[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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))[reply]
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))[reply]
Comment the BBC now has an article - [Million dollar maths puzzle sparks row]. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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).[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Comment: If you want to use page hits as an argument, [37] 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep certainly notable. BBC article as indicated by others. --CarTick 02:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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 [38], and author of a number of articles [39] 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)[reply]
- Redirect to P versus NP problem#Notable attempts at proof. --Petter (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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. --Cyclopiatalk 16:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Comment. It appears that the proof has fallen through [40][41][42][43]. According to Aug 13 column by Scott Aaronson in MIT Technology Review[44], "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[45]. 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)[reply]
- 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))[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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 [46]. Maybe it could be renamed to Deolalikar P vs NP paper, like the external Wiki? Abeer.ag (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Strong Keep A notable scientist and the article is very significant and contains many reliable sources. IainUK talk 01:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- By the way, the New York Times just published this interesting article. Paul August ☎ 01:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. As pointed out, whilst a team coming from 3-0 down to win 4-3 is unusual - especially with ten men - it's hardly unique. As pointed out, it did have lots of coverage, but on the other hand the nature of top-flight sport in the UK (or the US for that matter) is such that this is unsurprising. And WFC is correct, this AfD (and the other similar one which I closed in the same manner) should not be taken as precedents, each article should be examined individually. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C.[edit]
- Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A football league match like many others, which easily fails into WP:NOTNEWS and cannot be identified as anything special in the game history. I had started a discussion on WP:FOOTY about the notability of such article before nominating it, and it quickly emerged that most of the project users agree with this game not being notable on its own (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Manchester City F.C. 4–1 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. and Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C.. Angelo (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable match. GiantSnowman 18:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Angelo, with all due respect you started a debate on whether to remove these games, got a few responses over the course of two hours then made this AfD. If you want to base your decision on the consensus in that debate then you moved far too quickly - two hours just doesn't give time for people to respond, and true to form, the debate has now received a raft of opinions supporting keeping these articles. If you are simply proposing deletion on your own terms, then I fall back on the argument that what game is notable has not been defined properly by WP:Football and thus I would argue that their notability is set out by the fact that these are two of the more famous individual matches in English football history and they aren't even cup finals to boot. More detail on the debate page you linked above. Falastur2 Talk 19:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Very few individual football matches are notable in and of themselves - this isn't one of them. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. I have no opinion whether the game meets the GNG - it's up to Stevo1000 and Falastur2 to produce evidence of lasting notability (rather than next-day reports). But I must admit that any game when a side losing 0:3 was able to turn the tables in their favor is something special. I'd really like to keep this article. Unfortunately, our opinions on "something special" are not enough. East of Borschov 20:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Newspaper reports the day after the game aside, I can't find anything to grant this notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Angelo, with all due respect you started a debate on whether to remove these games, got a few responses over the course of two hours then made this AfD. If you want to base your decision on the consensus in that debate then you moved far too quickly - two hours just doesn't give time for people to respond, and true to form, the debate has now received a raft of opinions supporting keeping these articles. If you are simply proposing deletion on your own terms, then I fall back on the argument that what game is notable has not been defined properly by WP:Football and thus I would argue that their notability is set out by the fact that these are two of the more famous individual matches in English football history and they aren't even cup finals to boot. More detail on the debate page you linked above. Falastur2 Talk 19:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC) -[reply]
- Keep' - Here here Falstur. Angelo not being rude, you really need to stop going round like a dictator deleting whatever he wishes willy nilly and value other user's contributions more. Having created these two match pages, the fact that the Tottenham 9-1 Wigan page is still allowed to remain, yet these two pages are up for deletion is totally wrong. Furthermore their is no official rule/line on separate match pages on Wikipedia, therefore no one has any right to delete other Wikipedia user's hard work and contributions. Their appears to be good support to keep this page, but our arguments appear to be falling on deaf eyes. Like I say, I reiterate the rightful stance, that there is no official line/rule on separate match pages, therefore this cannot possibly be deleted, unless a proper Wikipedia guideline is enforced. (Stevo1000 Talk 23:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, no-one has tried to delete this article "willy-nilly" - it was brought here for discussion and will be deleted or otherwise by community consensus. That's exactly what AfD is for. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to ask you again to please stop attacking me. This is lasting way too long, and I am increasingly getting sick and tired of it. Also, I haven't deleted anything at all (the article still lies there, and cannot be deleted by me btw), so you're just saying a big lie over there. All I did was to find the article and nominate it for deletion on the grounds described above, and I am not the only one who agrees with such opinion as you can see in this page. If you have some point to mention, please do it politely, especially without attacking other users (which is absolutely unacceptable). Regards, --Angelo (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not "attacking" you at all, just trying to make sure you understand my comments and thoughts which I feel have gone largely unheeded on your part. And finally, like you probably, I can't be bothered continuing this silly disagreement with you which is growing into a irritating inconvenience. It is clear that we both just cannot agree, and hopefully we won't cross each others' path again. Shame really as that isn't what Wikipedia is about (Stevo1000 Talk 00:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, with the closing admin making explicitly clear that future cases should be considered on their own merits. This match, on its own merits, fails the GNG. I am sure that there are other matches that fall into this category that will also need to be AfD'd. However, I see the statement "like many others" as a strong indication that the nominator intends to use this as a precident. Matches that are not automatically notable (generally speaking, anything that isn't a cup final) should be considered on their own merits as to whether they pass or fail the GNG. --WFC-- 00:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or again userfy to User:Falastur2 if he wants it. Again, not a significantly notable match in and of itself, but appropriate inclusion for a ManCity season article if one were to exist. There is no real basis for inclusion as a stand alone article as it is "just another football match" of which there have been literally millions. It is not the first, nor will it be the last time a team has come from behind.--ClubOranjeT 00:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: I'm going to copy-paste this article to my userspace "for safe keeping", but I remain to be convinced that this match is non-notable, nor do I concede the point. In my eyes, the very comment "The greatest comeback ever?" - which is the article title for a cited BBC link in the article in question - should tell the whole story of why this match is notable. Falastur2 Talk 00:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If this match is notable, then literally hundreds of thousands of similar matches are notable. This could form part of the two clubs' season articles, but not a standalone. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've seen plenty of other similar comebacks in the early stages of the FA Cup. Nothing special about a team being 3-0 down winning 4-3. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: the match has not received coverage other than routine reports in the days following the game. No indication that the match is notable enough for its own article. BigDom 14:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable game. --Carioca (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the proof that this match is notable beyond the norm is in the first two references cited in the article. Just a glance at them shows it. --Dweller (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Coming from being behind 3-0 in an away fixture to win 3-4 is not exactly an everyday occurrence, but I would agree with many people here that such an achievement in association football may still have happened enough other times so as to be not particularly notable, or notable enough. However, that, by itself, is not why this game is considered notable. It is considered to be notable because of a criterion that most people here are completely overlooking in jumping to their conclusions (or alternatively, in exercising their own biased agendas). The missing criterion is that the team coming from behind did so with only ten men. Exactly how many times has THAT happened before?
- I challenge anyone who has posted on this page to vote to have this article deleted to cite some verifiably reliable references in order to prove your case. If someone can post here a number of such references to other top flight football games where the comeback team was
- (1) at a numerical man disadvantage, in addition to
- (2) an away venue disadvantage, and
- (3) a three or more goal score deficit disadvantage
- then I will vote along with you to have this article deleted. I'll leave it to others to decide how many such references are sufficient to prove your case. ITMT, I vote that this article remain in place because I personally cannot think of any other cases - and it is exactly that lack of other cases that would make this game particularly notable.
- Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 04:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Resp: 3 trivial intersections don't make it notable. I could come up with 3 equally trivial points to make almost any match notable under those guidelines. Motherwell coming back from 6-2 to draw where the comeback team a) missed a penalty, b) had a New Zealander playing for them, c) there was a full moon.
- As for how many times the team coming from behind did so with only ten men Probably dozens if you look world wide, but for something closer to home try 1957, Charlton, Hudderfield, Charlton played 70 minutes with only 10 men, 5-1 down with 20 minutes to go, won 7-6.
- A gsearch for "greatest comeback ever" produces millions of results. All 100% POV. For every one that thinks this game was it, there are a hundred other pundits that don't. Its trivial POV fancruft and belongs in a fanblog, not an encyclopedia. If it is Man City's biggest claim to fame by all means mention it in a season article, but the only ones that seem to see it as notable are City fans. ClubOranjeT proud contributor to Wikipedia, the trivia-almanac that anyone can edit 07:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, trivial intersections are irrelevant. All that is relevant is WP:V. We have two reliable sources here, each of which makes a strong claim for this being an important match in the history of one of the clubs involved. That makes this article entirely suitable for keeping. --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it? By that token, there are literally millions of notable football matches. Accrington beat Doncaster last night, and that was important to Accrington. I can find reliable sources that satisfy WP:V about how vital and unprecendented this result was, but I'm not pretending it's a notable match. It surely has to be notable within the context of football as a whole, and obviously this game isn't that important. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Put it another way. Is the match sufficiently notable to be included in a history of the club? Like cup finals are. Like the Bon Accord one. We have two RS saying it is. --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Resp - They are NOT 3 trivial intersections. All 3 of my listed disadvantageous conditions go to the heart of what defines a "comeback" in any walk of life (not just sport) - viz. a return to a former higher rank, popularity, position or prosperity. In this particular case they define the conjunction of disadvantageous conditions that had to be overcome in order for a team to turn almost certain defeat into unexpected victory. Exactly what part would a blue moon, missing a penalty, or fielding a New Zealander play in causing the spectating crowd to almost unanimously expect, right up until the very end of the game, the complete opposite outcome in a football match? Your argument is pure smoke and mirrors casuistry that any 8 year old can see is irrelevant.
- Despite my Wikipedia handle I really don't have a dog in this race, but it was clear to me that prior to my own post here most of the people voting to delete were doing so because they were only considering one or two of the three relevant criteria. I would just like to see the article deleted (if that is indeed the outcome of this AfD) for all the right objective reasons, and NOT because someone claims he got a "two hour consensus" on the matter (and I would suggest that the very concept of a "two hour consensus" is worthy of a Wikipedia article in its own right, because I, for one, would genuinely like to learn how that process works). I agree with you that any web search for "greatest comeback ever" stories will produce many (maybe not quite millions, but you seem to quite enjoy subjectively stacking your arguments) of results, all of which are 100% POV. However, I'm not defending this article from such a fanbase viewpoint. My defense of it is on a purely verifiable factual basis.
- The point of my previous post was to try and establish some level of objectivity in this issue amongst all the biased dismissive handwaving and hidden personal agendas. Your own citation of the Charlton-Huddersfield game goes right to the heart of the matter. Were Charlton the away side in that match or did they have the "twelth man" advantage of a home crowd? If they were playing at home then I'm afraid it doesn't count. But if you, or others, can still come up with a list of such games that establishes that my three conjoined criteria are still not all that special or notable then, as stated above, I will agree with you and change my vote to 'delete'. It's that simple. But please provide some facts in this debate to support your position for deletion and NOT just bogus side issues such as NZ players and blue moons that are not even pertinent. Or by latching onto just one of the defining criteria and conveniently ignoring the others in order to support your own case.
- The real issue here, as others have pointed out already, is that there is no clearly defined criteria for what constitutes "notability". But if this article goes then a whole slew of others (such as the "Battles of Old Trafford" articles) almost certainly have to go too. As for your, "Its trivial POV fancruft and belongs in a fanblog, not an encyclopedia" statement, it probably applies to most of the Association Football (and other sport) articles currently in Wikipedia. You won't find anywhere near the amount of text dedicated to such sporting trivia in a real encyclopedia created by subject matter experts such as Encyclopedia Brittanica, where there is probably not an entry for the "Theatre of Dreams" nor an entry for the now demolished Maine Road stadium. In the larger scheme of things, almost anything to do with soccer is pretty much trivia for the masses and not considered worthy of being addressed, except in the most minimal terms, by any self-respecting encyclopedia. So be very careful what you wish for.
- Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 16:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to your original challenge, for a start this wasn't a league match - it was a cup game. Anyway, even though I watched the Spurs-Man City game in a pub, one game stands out as far more memorable - Tranmere 4 Southampton 3 in 2001. Even though the winners did have home advantage and were not a man down, they were a division below the opposition and came back from 3-0 down. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So what's your point? I never said it was a league match. I acknowledge that being in a lower tier of a nation's football pyramid would probably constitute a fourth disadvantageous criterion for a "comeback team" in addition to the three criteria I originally listed, but it didn't apply to this match. Although, if that same cup-tie had happened a few seasons earlier when Manchester City were still a Championship team then it would have done. In the case of the Tranmere cup-tie game that you just cited, although it meets your new fourth criterion, it only meets one out of the original three I listed. So it's not a notable game. Very memorable, perhaps ... just not notable. BTW, I don't really hold with the view that all FA Cup and League Cup finals are automatically notable games. There has been something like 120+ FA Cup finals (quite a few more if you include the replay finals) since the first one was played back in 1872 - they cannot ALL be notable. IMO there was nothing particularly notable about this last one between Chelsea and Portsmouth - the outcome of that match was quite predictable even before a ball was kicked.
- You said "If someone can post here a number of such references to other top flight football games" I think this is clearly saying it was a league match. And in response to "it's not a notable game", please can you direct me to the policy which defines them? пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OTOH, that 1957 Charlton Athletic - Huddersfield Town game is indeed a notable game, because although it does not meet the "away game" criterion, there are possibly a lot of other new criteria it does meet. Five of Charlton's seven goals were scored by Johnny Summers, and the other two were assists by him. The goals were scored in a very short period of time; Summers' five goals include a 5-minute hat-trick. Additionally, it's the only game I know of that a team scored 6 goals and still did not win the game. All of those events in that game are rather rare to my mind, such that taken all together, they make that particular comeback rather special ... and thus notable. However, reducing high score deficits, or a team being an underdog or a rank outsider, or a team with less men performing better than one would expect them to do, or quick hat-tricks, are NOT sufficient in of themselves to make a game notable, because as rare as those events may be, they are still not rare enough. But put those sort of rare factors together (as long as they are factors related to the issue, and not just random facts such as NZ players and blue moons) such that you get "rare" cubed or to the power four, then that becomes statistically very significant, and thus notable.
- Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 21:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ([48]) (7 October 2001) chooses Charlton winning 7-6 over Huddersfield in 1958 over, for example, the Stanley Matthews FA Cup final in 1953, or Manchester United against Bayern Munich in 1999, or ManU beating Tottenham 5-3 earlier in 2001. But this article does mention the 2004 match in the context of the 10 greatest comebacks in any sport. ([49]) (6 February 2004) also opts for Charlton as the greatest comeback of all time, but again discusses Man City vs Spurs in that context. The Independent include the 4-3 result in their top 10 FA Cup comebacks - ([50]) - although half of them come after 1990. Remarkably, there does not seem to be a Wikiepedia article on Charlton 7 Huddersfield 6, but there are lots of sources - for example, ([51])
- So, two more RS describing this match as historic, this time, in the context of the history of football. --Dweller (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, perhaps a "List of notable football comebacks" is in order - I can't see each match meriting an individual article. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's go back to brass tacks. I assume we agree that the most significant football matches deserve their own articles? Cup finals, World Cup finals, the Bon Accord game? And I presume we agree that run of the mill matches (Norwich v Gillingham in the League Cup this week) do not? The question is the grey area in between. I'd argue strongly (and have done before) that any game that you would mention in a history of football, of a competition, or of a notable team deserves its own article. Hence Bayern Munich v Norwich City. This is subjective, of course, but not necessarily POV. I'll explain: for Bayern, that match is an insignificant embarrassment. But for Norwich, it's historic. And it's not POV, because we have RS saying so. For this article, we have RS saying it's historic in terms of the FA Cup and it's clearly historic in terms of the history of Manchester City. Two reasons for keeping. --Dweller (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A match being historically important to one of the clubs is not a reason to have an article on it - that would leave us with literally thousands of football match articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dweller: Just because an article is in a mainstream newspaper, doesn't mean to say it is encyclopaedic fact. it's not POV, because we have RS saying so is a flawed argument. Just because it is stated in a newspaper, doesn't make it so. All the references to this being greatest comeback etc are still simply POV on behalf of the journalists who wrote such sensationalism. Remember this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It should deal with verifiable facts not verifiable opinions.--ClubOranjeT 01:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, for all the arguments for and against deletion on here, gonads3 is the only one who has put forward a compelling and good argument backing up notability of the match in the media. Remember, this match was with a team who were 3-0 down, worse off down to 10 men with Joey Barton being his usual self and then they go and score 4 goals in 1 half away from home. I think I have a good grasp of football knowledge, but I can't think of any other comeback as worthy as this one in professional football (Stevo1000 Talk 23:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Was that me? :) gonads3 19:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this is a notable article and is already well referenced, but here are some further references [52][53][54]
- Keep per my opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester City F.C. 4–1 Tottenham Hotspur F.C.. The "match report" could use inline citations, though.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "this is a non-notable event, delete"? Hmm, really? List of notable references which prove the event is "notable":
- BBC Sport, "The greatest comeback ever?"
- MEN Media, "Finally the drama was done. The greatest FA Cup fightback in living memory was over and Kevin Keegan and his side could take the plaudits an extraordinary display deserved."
- Daily Mail - 4 May 2010, "2004, Spurs 3 City 4 - An FA Cup classic"
- Metro, "Manchester City produced one of the greatest comebacks in FA Cup history as they came from three goals and a man down at half-time to beat Tottenham 4-3."
- The Independent, "The ten best FA Cup comebacks, Tottenham Hotspur 3 - 4 Manchester City, 2004"
- adifferentleague.co.uk (Online Football Magazine), "Five years on from this incredible game we are still writing, reminiscing and enjoying the feelings we had during this phenomenal match. Kevin Keegan claimed that “people will be talking about the game long after we have gone”. That statement and the game itself is a testament to the place of the FA Cup in football folklore. It is a special competition, a competition which always has and always will create so many special memories."
- boxofficefootball.com, "The greatest ever comeback in F.A Cup history? Manchester City down to ten men 3-0 down then comeback to win 3-4 In February 2004 has to be right up there as one of the best your ever see."
Is it any wonder I'm annoyed at some of the comments on here? Why are we here having this discussion about an event that is apparently deemed "non-notable". This comeback was special and a one-off Wikipedia page is perfectly fine as the quotes in the references state. The page should stand in my view, it clearly is a famous comeback and the question "Is this notable enough?" is subjective. It would be a disgrace if this page was deleted, Wikipedia shouldn't be like this Stevo1000 (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouble is that a lot of these sources have some serious problems. Of the seven you've provided (and well done on finding so many), links 1 and 2 are news report (see WP:NOTNEWS), link 3 is broken, and links 4, 5 and 7 don't qualify as significant coverage. That only leaves this, which does indeed help to establish notability, but WP:GNG requires multiple sources. Find one more significant non-news source and you've done it - but these seven alone aren't quite enough. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trying my best here. Oh and here is the repaired Daily Mail link, should work now:
Other references I've found:
- Whoateallthepies.tv, "Top Five Man City v Tottenham Videos - 1. Spurs 3-4 Man City, 2004, An astonishing FA Cup comeback by City, who were 3-0 down at halftime"
- Footballfancast, "Tottenham 3-4 Manchester City (2004): Not a Premier League match but a classic nonetheless and goes down as one of the greatest comebacks in FA Cup history. Spurs raced into a three goal lead in the first half at White Hart Lane, but City (minus Joey Barton) weren’t about to render the second half as academic as Martin Tyler suggested. Andy Gray’s “I’ve seen it, but I still don’t believe it” says it all…"
- Sportingo, "Football's greatest comeback kings - 1. Tottenham 3 - Manchester City 4 (FA Cup, Feb. 4, 2004) - Ten-man Manchester City pulled off an amazing FA Cup comeback to earn a fifth round tie at Manchester United. Spurs led 3-0 at half time and Joey Barton received a second yellow card for dissent seconds after the half-time whistle sounded, yet Tottenham managed to throw a seemingly unassailable lead away."
- Boxofficefootball, 29 July 2009, "The greatest ever comeback in F.A Cup history? Manchester City down to ten men 3-0 down then comeback to win 3-4 In February 2004 has to be right up there as one of the best your ever see. As kevin Kegan quoted after the game They’ll talk about this game long after we’ve all gone he was not wrong."
- Premiershiptalk, 8 March 2010, "Ten-man Manchester City pulled off an amazing FA Cup comeback to earn a fifth round tie at Manchester United back in 2004. Tottenham led 3-0 at half-time after Ledley King , Robbie Keane, and Christian Ziege all scored in the first 45 minutes. City’s Joey Barton was sent off for a second booking when the score was 3-0 but Sylvain Distin, Paul Bosvelt, and Shaun Wright-Phillips leveled the tie before Jonathan Macken headed a late winner.Kevin Keegan said: “They’ll talk about this game long after we’ve all gone”. We are still talking about it now, Kev."
I know this is a news report, but it backs up the claims that this was a special comeback in English football and is a notable event:
I could probably find more, but surely this has to be strong evidence for keeping the page Stevo1000 (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for backing me up despite your doubts Stevo1000 (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "find-a-link" - always a fun game!
- http://www.soccerphile.com/soccerphile/news/comebacks.html says it is not even in the top 20 comebacks
- http://www.thefootballtube.com/videos/7615/best-football-comeback-ever-inter---sampdoria-0405.html says Inter-Sampodoria was the greatest comeback
- http://www.buzzle.com/articles/5greatest-comebacks-in-football.html says it wasn't in the top 5
- http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,,562527,00.html only has one football comeback in the top 10 for all sports, but it is not this one (bigger comeback, also with 10 men)
- and thousands more, all of which show it is purely subjective opinion on what is a great comeback.
- Virtually all links provided in support of notability are blogs (not WP:RS), news reports directly after the event (WP:NOTNEWS), match preview flashback (general sports journalism failing WP:NTEMP) and generally not "indepth coverage" so actually do not pass WP:GNG. None of them pass WP:V except to verify that the game took place, but since the arguments for keep centre around it being notable as the"greatest comeback in history" they fail WP:V in that - as shown by these links - the status as "greatest comeback" is purely subjective and therefore does not conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS. Yes it was a good spectacle as many football games are, but it is not encyclopaedic.--ClubOranjeT 01:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are many proper RS cited on this page and in the article. I agree some are blogs, but many are not. The commentor above who has discounted some sources because they are from newspapers is astonishing. WP:NOTNEWS does not preclude the use of newspapers as sources. Finding sources that don't include foo in a list of the "20 best things relating to foo" does not wipe out the sources that do include foo in lists of 30 greatest things related to foo. It merely means that there is dissent - something that should be noted in the article. Like, for example, creationist opposition to the theory of evolution should be noted in the article about evolution - it is not an argument for deleting it. (And vice versa). --Dweller (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fell free to twist my words, "news reports directly after the event (WP:NOTNEWS)" is what I wrote, at no time precluding the use of newspapers as sources where such use is appropriate.--ClubOranjeT 11:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the four links provided there by ClubOranje, the only reliable one is the last one which was written three years before this match took place so it's not surprising that the match was omitted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You miss the point - they were supposed to be comparatively similar; a blog, a mag, a newspaper... The point is ALL the links are unreliable. Mine, Stevo1000's, Dweller's, the ones in the article....because they all fail the basic test of reliability: WP:VERIFIABILITY. There is NO verification that this is the greatest comeback as that is entirely subjective. It is demonstrable that there have been other comebacks from more goals down, in less time, with less parity between teams. Unencyclopedic POV supported by systemic bias. Nothing more.--ClubOranjeT 11:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - To repeat myself, dubious notability aside, if kept, shouldn't the page be moved? That's not a title, that's a score, with no date! That'd be like having the 2003 Heritage Classic article at Montreal Canadiens 4 - 3 Edmonton Oilers. How many such games finished with that score? Plus I don't see why this shouldn't be merged to the appropriate football club article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.