Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayk Sedrakyan


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hayk Sedrakyan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Previously deleted after Prod, then recreated, then prodded again, and latter prod removed. Unclear what his claim to fame is. Only recently became a PhD, no indication that was especially important or that he has done anything since. Participated in some mathematics contests, got some scholarships, was in his student union, so was busy as a student but that does not make him notable. All refs are to primary sources, no reliable secondary ones. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 08:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

John the first time I have considered your Personal opinion and made the modifications according to your comments. But what you write now I would like to comment from my point of view. Unclear what his claim to fame is. There is no claim of fame at all, please understand that notability is not only about fame John, but achievements also or simply being worthy of notice. Only recently became a PhD, no indication that was especially important or that he has done anything since. '''Anything done since, what about several books and scientific articles published in the most prominent scientific institutions in different countries? or you and everyone else on this planet has got hundreds of them?''' Participated in some mathematics contests, got some scholarships, was in his student union, so was busy as a student but that does not make him notable. '''Did not only participate but was a Medal winner John, do you at least understand the difference? even if there are several medal winners, it is a VERY honorable achivement. If the Award is shared between several contestants the Award does not loose it's value because of it. Some mathematics contests is the math contest of your school or another school, International Mathematical Olympiad is definitely not SOME mathematics contest. Got some scholarships, not some scholarships John, but scientific scholarships funded by European Commission.''' Was in his student union, so was busy as a student but that does not make him notable. '''John, was not in his student union, was elected by 162 nationalities as the President of the students general assembly of Cite universitaire de Paris to represent 10,000 students. If it is not a notable and honorable work, can you please explain me why were they nominated to the Nobel peace prize?''' All refs are to primary sources, no reliable secondary ones. There are a lot of primary and secondary sources, if needed can be added.

So, once again, I ask you to reconsider the article for the publication and do not express yourself in such arrogant way. Thank you very much for your understanding, time and comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenriLegrand (talk • (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * He got a bronze medal at a Maths Olympiad, but that does not mean he came third, which is what a bronze medal usually means. They give out medals to half of the attendees, and bronze is the lowest ranking medal, with more given out than gold or silver (which also go to many people). It’s a meaningless award, given for turning up to an event that most of the world is unaware of. Being president of a student general assembly is nothing special (and he was elected by 19 votes, not 162 nationalities, according to the source). Being nominated for the nobel peace prize certainly isn’t; every year hundreds of people/groups/bodies are nominated, as the nomination process is very open. And he was not nominated, his university was while he was there, reportedly.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 09:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment John. '''I simply cannot believe that you are able to write, International Mathematical Olympiad Bronze Medal is a meaningless award, and be a Wikipedia reviewer at the same time. What about the scientific articles and books in top scientific publishing houses? or they are also meaningless for you? what is meaningful for you John? A good song with nice girls in the video?''' Honestly, with such life values and judgements you should be banned to be a reviewer in such a website as Wikipedia. P.S. about the voting process, there were 80 representatives who votes, they were elected too to be representatives, that's why in the final it was only 19 votes, but as it was the best result that was enough to win the elections. You see it was not some meaningless award like IMO medal to be shared among many people, it was given to one single person. By your logic, it is very honorable and notable award, because it was not shared. HenriLegrand (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)HenrlLegrand


 * Delete : Agree with the nomination, does not meet the notability criteria. The content seems like paid work, the creator account seems WP:SPA as well. The article was previously created with similar content by, which seems the account of the subject himself. Could be the case of WP:COI and/or WP:Sockpuppet. Coderzombie (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a paid work? I cannot understand which comment is more nonsense, the comment of John that International Mathematical Olympiad Bronze Medal is a meaningless award or your comment that is Seems like a paid work. Please, I want to ask to Wikipedia to help to review this article by some other reviewers. Because your opinions is based on some ASSUMPTIONS, that has nothing to do with professional approach. HenriLegrand (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)HenriLegrand
 * My point about the award was simply that normally in competitive events there is one gold medal, one silver medal, one bronze medal, given out to the best (fastest/furthest/strongest/whatever) participants. Occasionally with ties or certain structures of contests more than one medal of a colour is given out, but overwhelmingly the medals are for unique achievements. But the IMO does not do that. It gives out dozens of gold medals, more silver medals, and even more bronze medals. Getting a medal is nothing special: they are given to hundreds of participants every year. The article does not make this clear, and readers might think he was the third best mathematician at that years contest, getting a bronze medal.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 13:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

JohnBlackburne, thank you very much for re-formulating and re-explaining your point of view. In this way your comment sounds very polite and professional. Moreover, indeed I totally agree with you and your point of view. I have proposed to create a Wikipedia article, not because the notability is based on fame or a single achievement, but because the whole ensemble of results includes a tremendous amount of work done in his field of activity (Mathematics), 3 years of IMO's, 3 Master degree's, PhD's, 3 scientific articles in world's top Scientific Journals, Math books in top publishing houses and all these before the age 26-27, that's definitely a huge amount of work done and Notability is also the property of being worthy of notice. The funniest thing is that he was a Champion of Karate of Republic of Armenia (Bronze Medal Winner, 3rd place), but it was not even indicated in the article, because to achieve all these in Mathematics one needs decades and enormous amount of work, to become a Karate Champion one can achieve that in a year or even less. But I guess if in the article we delete all the information about Mathematics and keep only that he was a Karate Champion the article will get published because he came 3rd as the most strongest. I do not insist anymore, I fully accept your point of you, moreover I would like to thank you for all the time you have dedicated to this article, to read it and comment, hope you will understand my point of view too. Now, it's up to you and the other reviewers to decide shall this article be modified to be written more professionally or simply be deleted. I would be very thankful to you if you could give couple of advices how can the article be made better (what to delete and what to add) and I will work on it. HenriLegrand (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)HenriLegrand
 * The key is to find evidence of notability, in reliable secondary sources. These might be books, newspapers, websites, but they must be reliable (so no blogs, gossip sites, personal sites) and independent of the topic. Any such sources can be used, but more weight is attached to national (or international) reports than local ones, general rather than specialist publications, for establishing notability.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 00:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment, as I do not have very big experience in creating Wikipedia articles, but I would like to improve my skills, please could you tell me what is the main difference between the reliable secondary sources and reliable primary sources? for example an official website of some well known institution (like a publishing house) is it considered as a reliable secondary source? HenriLegrand (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)HenriLegrand
 * Delete : Subject doesn't seem especially notable, and the article appears to be WP:SPIP. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't find in depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, you suggest such sources exist, can you add them to the article or at least clearly list them here? Smmurphy(Talk) 14:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to thank all the reviewers, sorry if some of my responses were too direct or a bit with counter-attacking manners, indeed I appreciate very much the time you have dedicated to read the article and express your opinion, if you want to delete the article you can delete it, but I am ready to take into consideration all your comments and modify it (delete or add any information needed). Best regards HenriLegrand (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)HenriLegrand


 * Delete. As per nom. I do not wish to belittle his achievements, but they do not rise to the level to warrant an article.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subject appears neither to pass WP:PROF for his scholarly accomplishments, nor WP:GNG for his contest results and coaching. And I didn't find published reviews of his books (not even on MathSciNet) that could be used to make a case for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Citation impact on GS too small, even for mathematicians. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG; WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2017 (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.