Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shouryya Ray: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:35, 29 May 2012

Shouryya Ray

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

Delete Scientifically not notable per WP:PROF; in particular, no reputable source for impact of high school project exists. Argument from press coverage invalid as per WP:1E. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If this guy really solved a problem that has baffled physicist and mathematicians for 300 years, then obviously he is notable. There were ample sources in the article supporting this (before Thore Husfeldt removed them). The exact formulation of the problems remains unclear for the moment, but this can be tagged appropriately in the article and left open until this becomes clear. If the importance of his solution/results would turn out to be overstated, then an afd could be considered again. But for now, there is no reason to doubt. regards, Voorlandt (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

…if he really did solve such a problem, sure. But we cannot establish that. Several WP editors have tried for 24h. We failed. As soon as there is a reputable source for the magnitude of his contribution: he should have an article, and he’s certain to get one. So far, no such source exist. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Hydao (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There were many reports in the German press about this little genius. --Akolyth (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC+1)

… all of which repeat the same unsubstantiated claim that he did something that his contribution has baffled mathematicians and physicists for 350 years, all easily tracked back to hyperbolic press releases. We need one of the “baffled mathematicians or physicists” to speak up in the media, not references to badly researched newspaper articles. I’ve made a serious effort to understand the result, and then establish its notability. I failed. To argue for notability based on scientific achievement as per WP:PROF, should we not at least expect a nonzero number of published papers? We don’t have them. If his contribution is really notable (which it may be), he’ll easily get his paper, and a Fields medal. Then he becomes notable for WP standards. Not before. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep will be notable if it's true, and probably notable for the hoax if it's false. EdwardLane (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

… that’s not how we roll here. We come “after”, not “before”. It his project really is scientifically significant, he’s sure to get a page real soon. No reason to pre-empt that. If it’s not significant (i.e., just something you get a really nice 2nd place in Jugend forscht for), then the young man will have his reputation ruined. “Hoax” is not on the table. The issues are “scientifically notable” or “artificially inflated human-interest story”. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's quite common for the press to seize upon reports of some unknown (especially a whiz kid) solving a problem which has baffled technicians or scientists for decades or even centuries. This makes for good copy (not to mention newspaper and magazine sales, and web ad imprints). However, quite often the claims turn out to be spurious. Sometimes the inflated claims themselves become notable enough (such as with Shiva Ayyadurai) for the subject to get its own article, others (e.g., Vinay Deolalikar) are worth only a passing mention in an existing article, and still others aren't worth mentioning here at all. I think that at this point it's premature for us to be able to make any verifiable assertion of notability for Shouryya Ray. If his claims turn out to be true, then the article can be recreated. If his claims turn out to be notoriously false, then the article can be recreated for that reason too. But if his claims turn out to be false and also utterly forgotten after this brief flurry of press coverage, then there's no reason for an article to exist here. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on that: I have no doubts that the claims put forth in his project are correct. It’s not a hoax, or false/spurious in way Vinay Deolalikar was. Instead, my guess is that the result is entirely unremarkable, from a professional scientist’s point of view. An exercise in differential equations, maybe. Great for a high school student to be on that level, but not notable. He got 2nd prize in Jugend forscht, a very nice competition for high school students. (Make no mistake: it’s great and a laudable competition and all that.) But it does not a Wikipedia article make; not even the 1st prize holders become notable. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Looking back at my post, I probably didn't make this clear, but by "if his claims turn out to be true", I wasn't referring just to the claim of correctness of his proof, but to the claim that it is scientifically significant. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This may become notable at some stage in the future when more precise details emerge, but there is no real (verifiable) evidence yet to demonstrate that something notable has actually been achieved yet. Madmath789 (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When the problems have been identified and verified by experts, then articles on the author and problems can be written. Until then it is just a article about a boy who came second in a competition which doesn't sound worthy of an encyclopaedia entry. If this competition is in some way noteworthy then it should have an article and it then may warrant including this person in that article. But not notable enough for a separate article yet. ChrisUK (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisUK, you mention a possible, constructive merge that I actually thought about. If the Jugend forscht article included a list of past winners (and, in fact, runners-up) then we could include him on that list and redirect the article to there. But so far, WP has not found the competition sufficiently notable to mention even a single winner, so I abandoned the idea. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think we can say, at this time, that this person has solved a problem which has baffled mathematicians for 350 years. This event has not received any coverage outside the popular press, none of the articles have quoted any mathematicians or physicists commenting on the discovery, the statement of the problem itself is unclear and this apparently stunning achievement wasn't even enough to win the competition. Scholarly sources are preferred to news organisations for this kind of topic. I suspect what has happened here is that the significance of the discovery has been exaggerated to make a good human interest story. If that is the case (or until we have evidence it's not the case) we shouldn't be covering it. Hut 8.5 12:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to future re-creation. If his work is subjected to peer review (and by peer, I mean professional mathematicians, not fellow high school students) and accepted by the mathematical community as the solution to the 300-year-old problem, that would justify having an article about him. But the article doesn't even currently claim that the subject solved a 300-year-old problem, and attempted solutions along these lines don't always pan out under further scrutiny. The fact that the Jugend forscht judges found his solution only worthy of a second place award suggests that they didn't find it as impressive as the newspapers are making it out to be. Maybe the newspapers are right and the Jugend forscht judges are wrong, but there will be plenty of time later to determine that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is derived from the availability of sources; there are many, many sources available for this person. Unless there is a policy-based reason to discard these sources, the article should be kept. JulesH (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well (a) newspaper articles etc are not considered good sources for scientific subjects, and (b) the subject is only known for one event. Hut 8.5 17:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep - For a better description of what he did, Google "Analytische Losung von swei ungelosten fundamentalen". Keep due to media coverage, not due to his as yet unverified accomplishments. If it turns out to be not notable, then delete. PAR (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Par, did googling that help you? You have to believe me that scientifically pretty competent people on and off WP have tried to find out what this is about, or why it’s notable. This absolutely includes your Google suggestion; of course we’ve read those pages. It didn’t help. If it made you any wiser as to establish notability, I suggest you explain that to us. Otherwise it’s just flippant and makes an already opaque situation worse. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As said by others, no scientific notability as per WP:PROF, person notable for only one event as per WP:1E. vttoth (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple reliable sources independent of the subject giving significant coverage, hence notable per WP:N. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - I'm not sure if any of you read the top headlines today, but the story of this kid solving a 300 year old Newton riddle that had previously never been solved, has been picked up from at least a few dozen major news papers: Times of India, MSNBC, TImes colonist, Herald Sun, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkdw (talk • contribs)
- [1] does actually have two quotes from physicists: "This story seems rather suspicious" and "calculating the trajectories of falling objects hadn't been seen as a particularly grand puzzle of physics". In other words, yes, this has been exaggerated. And I don't think you've read the comments in favour of deletion above, since we are aware of this coverage. Hut 8.5 20:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - An opinion does not require knowledge of other opinions to be made. Mkdw^talk 20:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You started your comment by assuming we hadn't read certain sources. We have. If you aren't going to at least read your opponents arguments then your arguments are not going to be very persuasive. Hut 8.5 21:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I said nothing more than my lack of knowledge as to whether you were aware or not. No where does it assume or say that you have not. Merely if you haven't, then I'm pointing it out. The other opinions here are not my opponents. This is not a competition. There is no winner. My goal is also not to persuade the other editors either. You seem to have many misgivings about my comment. Mkdw ^talk 22:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Um, no. You professed ignorance of what other people think, I was trying to inform you. I should remind you that AfD discussions are not votes, and that if you leave a comment without addressing the issues at hand then it is unlikely to be given much weight by the closing administrator. Hut 8.5 22:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        May I remind you the sky is blue? I never suggested this was a vote either. Whether you think my comment does not address the issue is your opinion. I feel it does. I'm in awe that you're an administrator considering the rude nature of your comments. Mkdw ^talk 00:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending further developments. He solved Newton's 350-year-old riddle ... and only got second place? What did the winner do? Discover anti-gravity? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep this WP page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.90.188 (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It certinly goes under WP:BLP1E but if his achievent is a strong breakthrough then we should keep because we 'll see more of him in the near future. I am a little confushed though: What did exactly this person solve? Do we have some link to something more specific than just a "old problem stated of Newton"? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The solution devised by Shouryya Ray, 16, makes it possible to calculate exactly the path of a projectile under gravity and subject to air resistance." Clarityfiend (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've seen those vague reports, and they don't help much. However, the equation shown in some reports does not "make it possible to calculate exactly the path of a projectile under gravity and subject to air resistance," since air resistance depends on projectile shape. Clearly a number of simplifying assumptions have been made. -- 202.124.75.16 (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This kid is obviously incredibly bright, and will no doubt achieve great things, but coming second in a competition (which is all there is, under the hype) is not yet enough for WP:N. -- 202.124.75.16 (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, I guess. Since there has been a lot of news coverage of this, I have a bit of an urge to provide good information (in place of the hyperbole and repeating of unsupported assertions which have been prevalent elsewhere). On the flip side, I did just read WP:INTHENEWS and I do agree that WP:PROF and WP:ONEEVENT argue against inclusion. My biggest fear about deleting the article now is that it will get re-created (if not under this name, then somewhere else) with worse content than what we have now. I can't find any wikipedia policies which directly address whether waiting for a little while under such circumstances is a good idea, but I do see that Wikipedia:Recentism has the text "After recentist articles have calmed down and the number of edits per day has dropped to a minimum," (although they are more talking about rewriting later more so than deleting later). Kingdon (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering how uninformative most newspaper articles are I think this article should exist so people can attempt to get some better informaton (like that he won second prize and not first). It would be unfortunate if the only easily availabe source of real information got deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turgonml (talk • contribs) 09:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in multiple independent media. Things can be notable without being a scientific breakthrough. Taemyr (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BLP1E specifies three conditions not to have an article, and they are all met:

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single evhent -- as the news stories do here.
If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual -- this 16-year old student is a low-profile individual. He might eventually have a high-profile career, but per WP:CRYSTAL we can't assume that, and most engineers and scientists do not.
It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented -- winning second prize in a student competition is not significant, and nothing suggests a significant scientific breakthrough has been made. -- 202.124.74.156 (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete -- This is journalist sensationalism at its worst. It is questionable if the claim that what he did was unknown is true, this is one off event (like Deolalikar affair but at much lower level), at a local high school project at competition that deals with very well known stuff - this might have stood out at competition, but the unreliable press (Daily Mail - come on!) has blown it out of proportion, with most of the things written simply - wrong. The equation that he holds gives a glimpse about what this work is about - it is indeed analytic solution for the projectile speed in a model with quadratic drag, but it does not even seem original or previously unknown. So unless we have a peer review article and proof that there is indeed anything new or of value, we can safely remove this entry. Journalistic stupidity and sensationalism about things they hardly understand (i.e. unreliable reporting) does not make thing encyclopedic, and the hype itself is not very notable. Hence, delete. Wangleetodd (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 *'''Comment''' [[WP:BLP1E]] specifies three conditions '''not''' to have an article, and they are all met:
-::* '''If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event''' -- as the news stories do here.
+::* '''If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single evhent''' -- as the news stories do here.
 ::* '''If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a [[Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual|low-profile individual]]''' -- this 16-year old student is a low-profile individual. He might eventually have a high-profile career, but per [[WP:CRYSTAL]] we can't assume that, and most engineers and scientists do not.
 ::* '''It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented''' -- winning second prize in a student competition is not significant, and nothing suggests a significant scientific breakthrough has been made. -- [[Special:Contributions/202.124.74.156|202.124.74.156]] ([[User talk:202.124.74.156|talk]]) 12:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
+*'''Strong Delete''' -- This is journalist sensationalism at its worst. It is questionable if the claim that what he did was unknown is true, this is one off event (like Deolalikar affair but at much lower level), at a local high school project at competition that deals with very well known stuff - this might have stood out at competition, but the unreliable press (Daily Mail - come on!) has blown it out of proportion, with most of the things written simply - wrong. The equation that he holds gives a glimpse about what this work is about - it is indeed analytic solution for the projectile speed in a model with quadratic drag, but it does not even seem original or previously unknown. So unless we have a peer review article and proof that there is indeed anything new or of value, we can safely remove this entry. Journalistic stupidity and sensationalism about things they hardly understand (i.e. unreliable reporting) does not make thing encyclopedic, and the hype itself is not very notable. Hence, delete. [[User:Wangleetodd|Wangleetodd]] ([[User talk:Wangleetodd|talk]]) 14:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)