Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neeraj Kayal

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 keep. — FireFox 20:21, 20 July '06

[edit] Neeraj Kayal

Nonnotable graduate student. NawlinWiki 00:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, speedy if possible, as a non-notable bio. Fabricationary 00:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dionyseus 01:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Xrblsnggt 01:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 02:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: fails BIO NN and V. Zos 02:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. BIO indicates "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." The AKS Primality Test counts, doesn't it? --ColourBurst 04:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Google search turns up 12000 hits when name is in quotes, and all of them, on the first page at least, relate to the same person. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs
  • Comment to unsigned comment above: True, but its not been verified, which is why my vote is to delete. Once someone sources statements in the article I'll change my vote. Zos 04:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Whoops, forgot to sign. Is [1] good? In addition, it was reported in the NYT in 2002! This isn't the NYT source, but NYT has archived it so you need to pay to see the original article. Does that satisfy WP:V? --ColourBurst 04:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: Have you read WP:V? A pdf and a an e-mail wont save this article. A bio needs to be notable, and verifiable. Zos 04:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: That's not an email, it's a copy of the NYT article documenting the breakthrough. You're welcome to go through the original NYT article if you want. In addition, the pdf is an article from a professional society (American Society of Mathematicians). --ColourBurst 04:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment: Well, if its not an e-mail, then I must be reading this addy wrong - http://www.mail-archive.com. Zos 05:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment: It's not used as an actual source but only as a copy of the original NYT article for people to verify (but it's not sourced in the original article - only the actual NYT article is.). --ColourBurst 16:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per ColourBurst & TrogdorPolitiks --Cornflake pirate 04:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, being co-author of AKS test is notable. — Miles←☎ 04:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep im not sure what all the NN votes up there were about, but on the date im making this vote, the article certainly seems to establish notability all right with that AKS thing. Homestarmy 06:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable and sourced. --David Mestel^(Talk) 06:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, definitely notable, and improvements since this was nominated clinch it. Ultimately the nomination was the best thing that could happen to it, as it finally got the sources it needed. -- H·G (^words/_works) 07:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 07:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Godel Prize winner. -- GWO
• Speedy Keep as co-author of a major breakthrough in mathematics. Clearly meets WP:BIO and WP:V. --Wine Guy Talk 09:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, per Gareth Owen and Wine GuyLesqual 12:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. I wonder whether the deletion supporters have even read the article. The primality test is one of the most celebrated recent results in theoretical computer science. Pascal.Tesson 14:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep obviously Dlyons493 Talk 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - notable. --PresN 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per above: notable in field. Suggest early closure: article currently there has been heavily edited and is not the nominated article any more. Smerdis of Tlön 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Agree with Pascal.Tesson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.169.49 (talk • contribs) .
• Strong Keep - As Above Ed 20:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Notable, verifiable, and neutral. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as co-creator of the primality test. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.