Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankur Tiwari


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Ankur Tiwari

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article (probably autobiography) about a 19-year-old Indian who has invented a method of dividing by zero and has "developed a new supercomputer based on his own invented mathematical formulae." Originally a user page, but during WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Theindianicon he moved it to mainspace, so it must now be assessed as an article. I considered speedy deletion under WP:CSD, but there is certainly an assertion of significance and (since one reference shows him as a speaker about his theory at a conference) one can just about argue that it passes the credible assertion test. However, apart from that conference, I see no evidence that anyone else takes his theories or his supercomputer seriously. JohnCD (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

1) Government of India Patent Journal: Link: http://www.ipindia.nic.in/ipr/patent/journal_archieve/journal_2012/pat_arch_042012/official_journal_20042012_part_i.pdf 2) Peer View International Math Journal Publication: Link: http://journalshub.com/mrp-admin/news/1319523997.pdf 3) Article in largest and reputed newspaper group of India, Dainik Bhaskar, Link: \http://www.bhaskar.com/article/c-16-665295-NOR.html Sources are enough to get the article included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theindianicon (talk • contribs) 16:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;Not sufficient coverage in WP:RS to demonstrate notability. (WP:FRINGE will be an issue if coverage occurs in the future.)  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don;t see the significant coverage to establish notability. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; turning math on its ear with a new "way to divide by zero" does not seem to have caught much notice. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article fails the criteria of Notability as well as it lacks significant coverage. C ute st Penguin '''  {talk • contribs} 16:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete because article have Verified Notable Sources&mdash; article have the notable sources like,
 * I am unable to find significant coverage in all these links, it is requested that please mention the page no. of your 1st reference link. C ute st Penguin '''  {talk • contribs} 16:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as no evidence of notability. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  17:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Even this appears to be the case of WP:COI since the images used in the article is claimed to be owned by contributer which is further confirmed by the slogan of this website which is similar to username of contributers'. C ute st Penguin ''' {talk • contribs} 18:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. No significant coverage, no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Clearly a self-promotional autobiography. -- Kinu  t/c 19:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Press coverage, such as it is, is clearly insufficient for WP:GNG and WP:PROF and WP:CREATIVE are clearly not met.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I've seen the patent application, and I'm afraid that applying for or getting a patent is not an indication of notability. Addressing a conference on a subject may indicate that someone has taken notice of something, but there are conferences and conferences. Quite a lot of academics get invitations to speak at conferences that are really fund-raising events for the benefit of the organisers (scams), while other conferences are minor and mainly for the kudos of hosting a conference at or by a particular institution or publication. Others still are of international note. The one in question in the reference above appears to be the first one of its title and it seems to have reached at least the third one by now. Which raises a point - the paper was read in 2011. Presented in a parallel session rather than a whole conference session, it seems to have had little impact. The newspaper article, with a photo as big as (if not bigger than) the text, seems hardly an in depth coverage to judge by the Google translation (which I will admit is less than good - we could do to have a speaker of the language look at it). It must be remembered that if Einstein had posted an article on Relativity a day after his theory was made known, it would have been deleted. This has had three years (and no indication even of the patent being granted - can one patent a mathematical process?). Whether or not the method works, it's the notability that's at question. We do have articles on geocentric astronomy and the flat earth theories, neither of which work. Peridon (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FRINGE and WP:V, no mainstream sources to provide a properly neutral point of view on this subject, who also appears to fail WP:PROF and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not Youtube or facebook. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Division by zero is nothing new. At school we were taught that any number divided by zero is infinity (there is a special case: we were also taught that any number divided by itself is 1, and that zero divided by any number is zero; so 0/0 might be infinity, it might be 1, and it might be zero - but is almost certainly NaN). -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, his website (mentioned above) has caused my virus scanner (McAfee Security Scan Plus) to complain thus "Threats Detection. Harmful websites: 1. These websites you've visited put your security at risk: ankurtiwari.in" -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No malicious software on site http://app.webinspector.com/public/reports/23893177 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theindianicon (talk • contribs) 03:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Total lack of reliable sources, and at best this is claims of unsupported fringe science. That type of things requires lots and lots of reliable sources, which we totally lack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2014 (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.