Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vashist Narayan Singh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Chick Bowen 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vashist Narayan Singh

I'm not sure if this person is notable (gifted but no clear accomplishments that might meet WP:PROF), but this article, which focuses on his mental illness and personal problems, needs to be either rewritten or deleted per WP:BLP and WP:V (added per Bwithh's comment). ~ trialsanderrors 06:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- utcursch | talk 11:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and Rewrite The article at present gives an impression of a person with mental illness who was a scientist. It should be re written to potray a scientist with a psychiatric problem  Doctor Bruno  13:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Tragic, but without proof and clear detail on the "amazing feats" which "startled" Berkeley profs that he's supposed to have performed, this falls well short of WP:PROF. He may well be a genius, but without actual evidence, the "amazing feats" claim sounds like journalistic inflation in the cause of improving a story. Bwithh 15:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some contradiction between the article and the external links. Article says subject came to US and completed a PhD at Berkeley in 18 months in mid 1960s. Indian external link says subject was brought over as a research scholar to the US in 1963, and doesn't mention Berkeley at all. Berkeley link says subject completed/submitted his PhD dissertation in 1969. I don't think this subject is a hoax, but the information in the article seems very unreliable at the moment in addition to the issue I emphasized above Bwithh 15:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably not a hoax, but almost certainly hyperbole. This reads like a sensationalist tabloid article. Additionally, some of the assertions are similar to statements made about Srinivasa Ramanujan. I see no evidence of meeting any notability standard. Very few unique Google hits. --N Shar 23:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Abstain after rewrite. I can no longer offer any useful comments. As for Google hits, I did not mean to imply that they were a measure of his notability in India. As originally written, the article was much more focused on his American career, which was largely un-notable from what I could see. Now that the article focuses on India, I can't comment. --N Shar 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Google hits is not a criteria for India related issues.  Doctor Bruno  13:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment the article at present meets WP:BLP and WP:V. Hence there is no reason to delete per nom  Doctor Bruno  13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Then delete per Utcursch. I would appreciate you not nitpicking. Danny Lilithborne 13:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Doctor Bruno,Bakaman Bakatalk 16:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If Doctor Bruno thinks this would be a worthwhile subject for an article, he can re-write it before this AFD is over, and may convince people (including myself) to change their votes. Or, after the AFD (assuming it gets deleted), he's free to re-create the article with more encyclopedic content. As written, it's drivel. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment It has been re written and sources cited  Doctor Bruno  13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have re-written the article. utcursch | talk 12:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Delete. Changing my vote. Honestly, after I removed all unsourced "amazing feats" claims, the article fails WP:BIO. utcursch | talk 02:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
That's great, but there's still no evidence for the claims about "amazing feats" Bwithh 13:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed all the unsourced statements, including "amazing feats". The only statement needing citation is that he was the "first Indian to complete his post-graduate studies before the age of 20". The rest of the statements include references from The Times of India and proceedigs of Lok Sabha. utcursch | talk 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Bwithh; the re-write didn't change anything fundamental. This is still all about the guy's personal problems. That's not an encyclopedia article; it's something I would expect to see in People magazine. What did this guy do to be note worthy? Being a child prodigy and having mental health problems doesn't cut it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't understand. THe rewrite has of course provided citations and is encyclopedic. Please don't invent new criteria just for satisfying your ego of sticking to the initial vote made. The article has been modified and sources cited. It is now in compliance with WP:BLP and WP:V  Doctor Bruno  13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
ahem, WP:NPA. Bwithh 02:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment This may not come under WP:PROF. But as per WP:BIO Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events the subject is definitely notable. Not every one's mental illness is discussed in Loksabha. (On a lighter vein, As per my professor in Medical College, every one is a patient in Psychiatry and Dermatology!!!) This person certainly satisfied WP:BIO and the article is in compliance with WP:V and WP:BLP after the revision by utcursch I request to closing admin to disregard the earlier votes that were made when the article was not revised  Doctor Bruno  13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • News coverage, even major news coverage by major sources (which this subject does not have), does automatically equal encyclopedic notability. (and WP:BIO is a guideline, so this subject is not definitely notable anyway, even if one accepts that he has gained notoriety or renown (which I don't think he has based on the evidence). Being mentioned in Parliament is not persuasive as it is the everyday business of members of parliament to discusss specific cases related to petitions made by their constituents. Not every mental patient is discussed specifically in Parliament, but it is not extraordinary for parlimentarians to discuss the cases of specific ordinary citizens. And you can't inform previous voters that the article has been rewritten, but please don't "work the ref". My vote remains unchanged. Bwithh 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with Bwithh. After re-reading I still don't see the point of the article. "There, he conducted research on the Cycle Vector Space Theory and his research work catapulted him to great heights in the world of Science." Maybe if this part can be expanded/verified? ~ trialsanderrors 06:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article passes WP:BIO as he has been cited by multiple independent sources. Valoem talk 17:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see anything here which makes the person notable as a mathematician. Suffering from schizophrenia doesn't make him notable either. Paul August ☎ 17:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I still don't see why this man or his work is important or what influence he has had. --C S (Talk) 11:15, 29 October 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.