Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnav Tripathy


 * 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. Luna Santin 03:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Arnav Tripathy
the article claims the subject is a mathematician. It does not back up the claim. The article describes a good math student. Math students are not really worthy re: WP:BIO. Jayron32 16:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Many mathematicians take courses at a local college. Tripathy attends a high school, but takes college math courses.  In this sense, he is just like most other mathematicians.  Tripathy is a notable name, and there are obviously enough sources to support keeping this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.114.157 (talk • contribs)


 * Delete. Mathematician = person who works in the field of mathematics, either professionally or as an amateur.  Math Student = person who takes classes in the field of mathematics.  A notable mathematician should be one who has made significant contributions to the field of mathematics.  What axioms or theorems has this person created?  What novel proofs has he done?  Cite a textbook or a professional journal that shows this persons work in mathematics.  You can't because he is not a mathematician.  The subject has made NO contributions to the field of mathematics.  He takes classes.  He does his math problems in those classes REALLY FAST.  A student of a subject, even a really smart student, is NOT a noteworthy subject for an article. --Jayron32 02:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayron, you are obviously not a mathematician. IMO is not about doing problems, it is a place where mathematicians gather to prove theorems and come up with new ideas. Speed has nothing to do with it. I am not an expert on this person, but I am sure he has contributed useful things to his field, we just need to find a source familiar with Tripathy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.114.157 (talk • contribs)

"Third party verification from a reliable source outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized as performing at the highest level." If he is a competitor, we need to see evidence that he is widely recognized. I will warrant that merely finding third party sources that state such would be fine. Are there articles by outside sources that review his performance at IMO? Are there articles out there that talk about his performance as a math competitor? If so, cite them. If not, his notability is unverifiable by wikipedia standards. Under BOTH claims, (that he is a notable mathematician, OR that he is a notable competitor), this subject fails the litmus test. If the article can be proved with valid citations to verify his notability as a mathematician OR his notability as a competitor, I will change my vote. However, until and unless that happens, this guy still doesn't pass the notability litmus test. --Jayron32 01:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Still delete. OK, he's a Mathematician. But is he a notable mathematician as defined by WP:PROF, WP:BIO or WP:NN.  If he is notable as a mathematician, the article needs to furnish proof of such by citing references to his work in a peer-reviewed journal or some equivalent.  What work has he done that merits that level of notability?  If he is notable as a competitor, then where is the proof required under this guideline:


 * Delete. It's seemingly a self promoting bio piece. Khukri  ( talk  .  contribs ) 22:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

- Official Wikipedia policy. In order to argue that this article needs deleting, you must argue that IMO is not the highest amateur level of mathematics in THE WORLD. Since Arnav competed at IMO, the only way this article should be deleted is if the above is determined. IMO is obviously the highest amateur level of mathematics competitions in the WORLD, therefore this article should be kept. Also, @ Khukri: I am not Arnav Tripathy, as you can easily find out using my IP address, and the confirmed location of Arnav Tripathy. --Mysmartmouth 23:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activites that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. Third party verification from a reliable source outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized as performing at the highest level."
 * As we are talking about an academic subject, the relevant test here is WP:PROF (or something similar, I know it's not a fully fledged guideline). The subject fails it by a long, long,  way.   Mr Stephen 23:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. He's not an athlete. Yeah, you can argue he's a competitor but you would just be stretching the intention of that part of WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 18:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Performing well at IMO does not make anyone notable (but, well done).  Mr Stephen 23:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Just because he's not an athlete does not mean he is not notable. He won a gold medal in an international competition where almost 500 people from 90 countries competed. If he had won a gold medal in swimming or ice skating or gymnastics or track at such a competition no one would claim he was "non-notable". He has also competed on two other national teams. And let's get real--this kid is still in high school and he is already taking graduate level math courses at a university! The claim that he is an "up and comer" is obviously justified. The article does need to be corrected that "Arnav Tripathy is considered by many to be ... one of the top mathematicians in the world." Obviously, that is not correct. Even though he won a high-school level competition, obviously no one considers him on the level of full professors at top universities--yet. RickReinckens 06:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the reference that backs up the claim "he is already taking graduate level math courses at a university!" is broken I fixed it. Even when it's fixed, the basic problem remains, in that performing well at student level courses does not make him notable.  Mr Stephen 11:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. per above. --JohnPatricks 00:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a new editor and this is his only edit to date.--A. B. 04:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Not totally true. You do not have to be a student to make IMO, and 1/12 is not a definite number. Also, you ignore how hard it is to even make the US team for IMO. 6 out of over 200,000 initial AMC applicants make the IMO. That's definitely noteworthy in itself. Jayron, I think at this point the only plausible reason for inclusion is reason #2. If you visit the Art of Problem Solving forum, the largest forum of professional and amatuer mathematicians, you will not find a single person who doesn't recognize his name. As for what you asked, there are no real math competition journalists or analysts. His techniques have been featured on AoPS, and the top two mathematical societies in America have recogzied him in their newsletters and journals (I added sources just now). This is a huge thing, because if you read the rest of the articles in these newsletters, you will see on what a great scale Tripathy's acheivement was.
 * Delete. The IMO is for school students under 20, and 1/12 of all participants in the finals win gold medals. Espresso Addict 03:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply. In response to RickReinckens; the fact that he is in high school and taking graduate level math classes is irrelevent to his worthiness to be included in Wikipedia.  Being a really smart student is not a valid guideline for notability under WP:NN, nor are any of the claims that MIGHT make him notable are verifiable under the WP:VERIFY policy.  Look, I am sure that this guy is a really nice kid, and I am positive he is very smart, but if that was all that it took to get an article, the Wikipedia servers could not hold all of the articles that would appear here.  Articles, ESPECIALLY biographical articles, need to go through a vetting process that assures that the persons included therein are have really done things worthy of noting.  This guy has not.  The threshold question for notability is: Do sizeable groups of people know this person who has not met this person.  No one defending this article has produced any proof that that is the case.  Lets look at the TWO claims that are made for his inclusion:  1) He is a mathematician.  If so, cite his published work as a mathematician.  If he has not published any work, than he is not a verifiably notable mathematician.  2) He is a competitor of the highest level, on par with other competitors in such endeavors as sport.  If so, cite a third party source that has noted and reviewed his performance at said competitions.  A local newspaper article merely noting his participation and placement doesn't really qualify.  Have math competition journalists noted his performance?  Did math competition analysts review the problems he worked, or the theorems he proved or whatever?  Was he featured in an article on the top Math Competitiors?  Has his math competition techniques been included in the popular math competition press?  If any of these things are true, then all you have to do is cite the sources so everyone can see his notability.  ALL of the things that people have said so far about this subject may be TRUE, but if they are not verfiably notable, then he does not warrent inclusion in Wikipedia. --Jayron32 05:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Please consider changing your votes after viewing the additional sources I added. --Mysmartmouth 02:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - FWIW the sports analogy seems apt to me, although obviously not an exact parallel, and I agree with Mysmartmouth's points.HeartofaDog 00:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Being won over slowly, but still delete. OK.  I checked out the two new websites.  They mention Arnav Tripathy's participation in the event, and even his winning a gold medal.  But they are little more than press releases.  The MAA site doesn't even mention him beyond the picture caption, and the AMS site mentions him in a single sentantce.  Mere paricipation, and even placement, in such a competition does not prove that mathematicians find this guy noteworthy.  Look, on the web you can find my participation in the National Academic Quiz Tournaments national championship for 1997.  That doesn't prove anything about my skill in acedemic compeitions.  Could you please provide a link to the AoPS forum, especially threads relevent to Tripathy's performance and skills as a problem solver vis a vis his noteworthiness as a math competitor of the highest degree?  If indeed the discussions that you say are going on are indeed going on there, that would provide a relevent to Tripathy's notability.  THAT would show that he is thought of as a top mathematics competitor by people who follow the field.  I will concede that THAT is what is needed to prove his worthiness. Provide the link, and if it says what you say it does, I will change my vote.  --Jayron32 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I don't want to make too strong of an appeal to authority but I am a mathematician and frankly most of our community doesn't pay much attention to the never-ending flow of wunderkinds. Yes the kid is probably good, probably even excellent and has a decent chance of having a nice career in a notoriously difficult field. But let's face it, the article is not and cannot currently be built around reliable independent third party sources. For instance, the first sentence is:
 * Arnav Tripathy is considered by many to be the best high school mathematician in the United States, and one of the top mathematicians in the world.

Now, come on, let's please stop the nonsense. And the sentences
 * The American Mathematics Society, the largest organization of professional mathematicians in the US, as well as the Mathematical Association of America, recognized Tripathy in their newsletters.

and
 * Also, Triapthy was honored by Congress for his success in the 2006 US Physics Team

are laughably misleading. The AMS and MAA don't recognize Tripathy, they just report (in passing) that he is one of the contest winners. Good for him and I wish him all the best. Congress did not honor Tripathy. A few well-intentioned congressmen honored the members of the US Physics team. As for the argument that he's just as notable as an athlete competing at a high level, I'm sorry but I fail to be convinced by that argument because, like it or not, even talented mathematicians do not get the same kind of exposure as athletes. Quick, name one winner of a math olympiad of the past 20 years? The debate should not be over the value of his achievements (which is undeniable) but on the possibility of making this an article of encyclopedic value based on reliable sources. Sure it's as hard, if not harder, to win the math olympiad than to be a college quarterback but it's also very hard to raise five kids when you're on welfare and WP:BIO is not about how impressive the person's achievements have been. Pascal.Tesson 18:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"'Third party verification from a reliable source outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized as performing at the highest level.'" The closest we have is third party verification of participation and placement; and even that is weak. So far we have no proof of the widely recognized threshold. A few dozen of his buddies at high school know about him. A few hundred people he faced at his math competitions have heard of him. I would figure "wide recognition" ought to include more people than could fill a gymnasium... I am not making light of his accomplishments. I have personally been involved in accademic competitions for a large part of my life. That doesn't mean that I think that the best accademic competitors need to be part of wikipedia. The nature of the competition itself lacks notability. Is that fair? Probably not, but we don't live in a society that places that rewards academic success or brain-power in that way. Wikipedia is not the place to change that. Wikipedia should only reflect the values of the society it reports on. --Jayron32 23:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply Thank you Pascal for helping me to make my point. The trouble with this subject is that it is, by its very nature, hard to verify notability.  Wikipedia has a far greater capacity for articles than a print encyclopedia, but it DOES have certain standards of notability and verifiability.  I am trying to give the supporters of this article the opportuniy to prove that.  So far, all attempts have been seriously lacking.  The things I mentioned about the "math competitions press" were half tongue-and-cheek.  Is the subject worthy of an encyclopedia article?  Who knows, maybe he is...  Can you prove his worthiness, even if he was so?  For this guy probably not.  The standards set in place for inclusion in wikipedia are verifiability and notability.  Even if he is notable among mathematicians, that notability is not verifiable.  Again, I point to the WikiPedia policy that the suporters of this article have cited.  It actually works against the arguement they are trying to win:
 * Even though I feel that the arguments in favour of deletion have been much more rational and in line with the existing guidelines and policies, we might end up keeping this article as a no-consensus. If that is indeed the case, the article needs a definite rewrite to be neutral and verifiable. In particular the quotes I mentioned earlier have to go as they are clearly misleading and not based on fact. Pascal.Tesson 13:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to the Art of Problem Solving (AoPS) forum. You can browse around, but I sugggest creating a topic such as "Have you heard of Arnav Tripathy" or "Give your opinions on Arnav Tripathy" or anything of that nature, and gauge the responses.  Obviously, I've never seen something like that used in an AfD, but the results will show you what percentage of the top math students and mathematicians know Tripathy.  EDIT: If you scroll down that page and look at Pakman2012's post, it shows an example of the reverance shown toward Tripathy (though by itself it is an admittedly weak example).  However, I'm sure if you look around you can find more posts like this. --Mysmartmouth 01:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Another source added to the article. (this one)  By the way, the vote is 5-5 at this point, and seems deadlocked.  I think Pascal.Tesson's idea is not unreasonable. --Mysmartmouth 01:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) the AfD process is expressly NOT democratic. The adminsitrators use these discussions to inform their decisions, but winning a mere tally of up/down votes is not enough to keep or delete an article.
 * 2: I checked out the forum. If, as you say, I must ask around to find out about Mr. Tripathy's skill, then his skill isn;t notable to prompt discussion in absentia of my hunting around for what people think of him.  Merely some guy mentioning that he'd like to compete on his team isn't enough to verify notability.
 * 3: External sources implies that people OUTSIDE of the competitions have noted his performance WITHIN the competition. Even the discussion on the forum you gave seem to consist entirely of people who are themselves competitiors.  By analogy, any forum where people play a game and talk about other competitors would be enough to meet the threshhold for inclusion in Wikipedia.  Certain competitions (soccer, tennis, auto racing, and even poker, and some could claim spelling bees) have fans OUTSIDE of the competition.  There are people who watch and know certain, say, poker players who they have never met and indeed, the fans of poker may not even play poker at a competitive level.  There are poker tournament journalists, and a poker press that reports on poker players performance, skills, etc.  Thus a poker player DOES make the notability threshhold merely for being a good professional poker player.  Math competitions do NOT make this threshold.  The competition ITSELF may be notable, in that the IMO might, as a competition, make press.  However, since no one outside of the competition are really fans of the competition, the participants of the competition themselves are not verifiably notable in the sense that there is widespread press coverage of their performance.  Is this fair?  Probably not.  But, society has determined that poker players are notable and math competition players are not.  The utter lack of coverage of these competitors proves that.  Wikipedia is built on societal concensus.  This consensus (as determined by society as a whole) is that kids who compete in math competitions aren't that notable.  Thus they aren't notable on Wikipedia. --Jayron32 03:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments First, I'd like to make it clear that what I said about rewriting is not simply "reasonnable" as Mysmartmouth put it but it is a necessity per policy. Furthermore my personnal opinion is still that this guy does not meet WP:BIO. I did a search for Arnav Tripathy on the forum and what I come up with are trivial references to his name. In fact, he's one of the users so people often call him by his real name. The whole idea of establishing his notability through the fact that people on that forum know him is like saying that Can't sleep clown will eat me should be an article not on the Simpson's joke but on the Wikipedia admin . After all, ask anyone on Wikipedia, they know him! Sure, but no one else does. Pascal.Tesson 11:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the above comments, so having left a message on my talk pages to reconsider, I'm sorry it's still a Delete for me. Regards. Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 11:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I won't accuse anyone of sockpuppetry, but I think that anon's vote should be discounted as highly suspect. Note also that among the other supporters, is (as pointed out earlier) a single purpose account. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 12:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note to the closing admin Two comments on this debate were made by . His edit history is quite short and, oddly enough it contains
 * 1) a long conflict with  who supported deletion in the present case
 * 2) an edit to the user page of  who was vocal here.
 * Strongest Possible Delete. I rarely insert adjectives in front of "keep" or "delete", but I feel I should this time.  Arnav Tripathy may be an absolute genius, but he is not notable under Wikipedia guidelines.  The article makes numerous unjustifiable statement from the very sentence: "Arnav Tripathy is considered by many to be the best high school mathematician in the United States, and one of the top mathematicians in the world".  Well who are these many people?  Where is the source for this information.  To make such a statement, one must have quite a great deal to back it up. If one removes such statements, the article becomes nothing more than a collection of math competitions that Tripathy has won and lost.  Math competitions are very well and good, but winning a few does not make you notable.  If Tripathy had some sort of presence in the national media, he might well be notable, but winning math competitions is not an inherently notable feat.  As for his participation in the International Math Olympics, Tripathy didn't even finish in the top 10.  If indeed he is "one of the top mathematicians" in the world, why couldn't he manage to even place in the top 10 at a competition essentially designed for high school students? If Tripathy is notable, I would venture to say that the star players of every US state championship football team are notable.  I could go create 1000 such articles now, but that would be a gross violation of WP:POINT.  In any case, if Tripathy is notable so are about ten or twenty million other people.  I'm sure the guy's smart but he is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool3 (talk • contribs)


 * 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.