Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achillefs Tzioufas


 * 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.  Sandstein  20:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Achillefs Tzioufas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability, nothing to support the claim that he is "noted in particular" for his 2018 proof. Draft:Achillefs Tzioufas already rejected for same reasons. Fram (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC).

The disputed phrase has been changed. Rmr312. Please compare with page Richard Timothy Durrett. The notability is indirect -- i.e. the importance of the conjecture lies on the person stating it originally in the literature!


 * "Indirect notability" is in general not accepted on enwiki. What you need to show is that other reliable, independent sources have discussed Tzioufas (in general or for the 2018 proof). Fram (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC).


 * Please check with WP:ACADEMIC !!!

'''Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. '''

This entry qualifies, provided that entry Richard Timothy Durrett grants that an open problem posed by him in several books and reviews is a major problem. Should you desire to remove both then please notify! Rmr312.
 * Delete Subject clearly does not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Criterion 1 must be verified with reliable, independent sources, and I quote from WP:ACADEMIC 'Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources are notable.' The subjects own paper is not sufficient. Further explanation is given, and I quote from WP:ACADEMIC 'In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question.' In this case there are NO other references that mention the subjects work. I reviewed the article on AfC, and provided further explanation when the editor left a question on my talk page. The lack of notability was also explained to the editor when they left a question at WP:AFCHD. The editor has also tried to rewrite the notability requirements, removing the clause that I have quoted. David. moreno 72    09:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) Delete The proof was published only in 2018, so it didn't yet have time to garner any interest., it really is not done to change our notability guidelines so that they match you position in an AfD discussion. Also, I'm at a loss what you mean with "indirect notability", but it sounds like something that is covered by WP:NOTINHERITED. AS for comparing this one to other articles, please see WP:WAX. --Randykitty (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Fram, Randykitty, I am a senior Professor in Math and I have never seen anything written alike the claims of Prof. Tzioufas' paper in 40 years in Academia. I do respect your right to make a living out of doing this (if you can't find anything honest to do with yourselves), however the general principle is that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where anyone that sees something unprecedentedly notable and wishes to contribute an article with respect to it, should be at least permitted to do so.

Therefore, if any of you has ever seen a claim like this in a mathematics journal as that written in the abstract of the sited paper:

line 3. This resolves a longstanding open problem pointed out to in several instances in the literature.

and, more in particular, in a journal anywhere near as prestigious and highly respected as the Journal of Statistical Physics edited by Professor Joel Lebowitz himself, please give me a heads up and I will leave this page with many apologies. However, as I very much doubt any such notable incident has taken place in the recent history of mathematics, I urge you to stop hassling my honest effort to make this fact known to honest readers!

Furthermore let me argue a bit seriously semantics with you chaps: a claim published at the Journal of Statistical Physics, which is precisely what is Prof Tzioufas entry about, is by DEFINITION A RELIABLE SOURCE. And here is what I mean by definition.

1. Quoting from the definition of source:

Definition of a source The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
 * The piece of work itself (the article, book)
 * The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
 * The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

2. Quoting from the definition of reliability:

Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

3. As regards Significance: Are you claiming yourselves that a 30 year old conjecture posed originally by Richard Timothy Durrett himself is insignificant? Not to mention the subject the fact that this is the Central limit theorem

Now, please note that I have an actual job to do, instead of arguing gory detail and nuisance that anyone can amend every now and then to her benefits in order to make a living out of it. And please try to hassle another person instead of damaging your own reputation here. In conclusion, I reckon that either I am dealing with illiterate's bullying, or you are merely bullies.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Darn! I'm unmasked! You got it,, I'm a bully with nothing better to do than make a living out of editing WP (I wish...) If you have a moment out of your busy life as a senior professor, could you have a quick look at WP:NPA? And I thank you for explaining Wikipedia to us, but I'm afraid that you will have to adapt to WP, not the other way around. So, yep, we have a reliable source that Tzioufas Achillefs published an article, nobody contests that. What we do not have, though, is any evidence that anybody has paid any attention to this article (beyond the journal's editor and reviewers, of course). That are the reliable sources that we need. Not the acknowledged fact that Tzioufas Achillefs publishes articles, but that those articles have been noted. And I'm afraid that we cannot just take your word for it, senior professor or not. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. I am actually a retired Nobel Prize winner... So I strongly recommend that you read and try to understand WP:ACADEMIC again, plus the links therein to other policies and guidelines. And once you have shown us evidence that Tzioufas Achillefs has been noted (as opposed to "has written papers"), I'll change my !vote immediately from delete to keep. --Randykitty (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is your claim of being a Nobel laureate a bit of amusing rhetorical sarcasm or is it a fact? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was assuming sarcasm but we have had at least one Fields medalist as an active editor here. Alas, we seem to have driven him away two years ago by trying to delete too many of the stubs he was creating. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. GS cites for this person's work are miles below the standard needed to pass WP:Prof. If the subject's proof is so wonderful, the citations will show it in the course of time. We can wait. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC).
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not even getting a real review in MathSciNet for, just a copy-and-paste of the abstract, is not a good sign for the mathematical significance of this new result. (Don't get me wrong, lots of my papers don't get reviews either, but it's a signal that the mathematicians don't care, in my case because the papers are CS more than math.) At least the paper is listed in MathSciNet, so it is a legitimate result. Tea-leaf reading aside, we have no evidence of passing WP:PROF or any other notability criterion. And without evidence we can't just rely on the assertions of editors here that he's done something important — we need to rely on reliable sources for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of being academically notable. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems perfectly plausible that this will in the course of time be considered notable, with secondary sources, and its author simply didn't understand Wikipedia's criteria. Some of the language here seems disrespectful to the creator of the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: The creator of this article has been actively adding related material to the articles Contact process (mathematics) and List of unsolved problems in mathematics. It would be beneficial if someone had a non-template-based discussion with them about the purpose of Wikipedia and our standards.  (And probably also WP:COI.) --JBL (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The article creator blanked this AfD with a rude message and was soon afterwards given a short block for edit warring on the unsolved problems list. Maybe they'll be more contrite when they come back? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2019 (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.