Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prasant Maths


 * 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. Very clear consensus for delete here apart from the article creator. Davewild (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Prasant Maths

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article appears to present as fact a technique for using numerology to predict the scores of cricket matches in advance based on the dates on which they will occur. The topic appears to be a piece of original research and fundamentally unverifiable; all searches for the phrase "Prasant Maths" turn up no hits other than the WP article, and the only source listed on the article appears to be a self-published blog post. As such, the content seems to be unencyclopedic and unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I am also nominating the following related page (by the same editor treating the same topic, also supported only by self-published sources):
 * Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: the same author also worked on Prasant Score Calculator, which seems similar in subject matter. Praemonitus (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch! I'll nominate Prasant Score Calculator, as well. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete This is original research and is not discussed in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply: The source is 'news site' which publish the contents independently in the name of original person. So, the reliable source condition is fulfilled,


 * As per wiki terms, six months are allowed for the development of articles. Both the articles are like stubs, no violation of wiki. An author can highlight and create multiple pages related with a methodology of the third person, no problem in it either.


 * I expect co-operation from all in the construction and development of both the pages, rather than destruction. Both are rich with latest knowledge based content, purely maths...nothing occult. I demand patience from the wiki team. Till 6 months [minimum], allow the pages to exist in happy mood...without any warning msgs etc.


 * Our team is working day and knight to collect the most accurate facts and links related with this new method. Thank you. SillyLilies (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SillyLilies (talk • contribs) 09:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The articles linked on that "news site" were written by "Prasant," making them primary sources and unsuitable for verification of encyclopedic content. And, again, there are literally no hits for the phrase "Prasant Maths," leaving no realistic prospect that any verifiable sources will be found.


 * As for the "knowledge based content" of the articles, they explicitly promote a system of numerological divination using astrology and calendar dates to predict the future, presenting the methods as fact. At best, if this system of "predictions" were wide-spread and much commented-upon (by independent, reputable sources), then an article could be written documenting the beliefs as a social phenomenon like any other superstition. Notice, however, that the articles on e.g. dowsing or triskaidekaphobia do not advocate those beliefs, but merely document them. In this case, since there is no evidence of any reputable sources independent of "Prasant" saying anything about this "system," it will not be possible even to salvage these articles into a form more like those on other, established superstitions. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply As already stated, our team is working towards finds more reliable sources. And there is no mention about numerology in both the articles. The method has been treated by the creator of these pages, i.e. me, as Maths. And my mind is finding sources in that direction.


 * One big question, you are saying 'Prasant Maths' is unseen on net, anywhere. Then, how did you land/come across specifically this page, amidst more than 1 lac newly created pages in past two months?SillyLilies (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that the topic is "unseen on net, anywhere", , as that is an exceptionally low hurdle which has nothing to do with whether or not an article should exist on Wikipedia. We have articles about topics which have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. I do not know where your "six months" comes from. You have one week to produce such sources, though that time may be extended if enough editors don't chime in. It is the immediate obligation of any editor advocating keeping the article to furnish the needed sources. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As for how we came across the article, we have volunteer teams of editors called "new page patrollers" who when appropriate, take action to nominate articles for deletion. We also have other volunteer editors (such as me) who work to review articles nominated for deletion. I have participated in thousands of such discussions, and argue to keep some articles, and delete others, based on my knowledge of our policies and guidelines. This is a routine maintenance function of this encyclopedia, and your article is receiving routine evaluation. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  04:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, Original research that isn't backed up to any reliable sources. Also, frankly, a load of rubbish. Harrias talk 06:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Exception to self published source I think news sites are exceptions to the self published source. Wiki has further stated this 'Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field...' Could this help my cause, gentlemen?


 * Another thing, when I checked the genuineness of the patrollers of my pages, I found that most of them seems to have been freshly created to harm my pages. I felt that you and few others have been appointed by an enemy of mine or any competitor of the person Prasant, am I wrong?


 * The phrase "self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" indicates that an article written by Prasant could perhaps be used as a source for non-controversial information about Prasant, for use in an article about Prasant. Self-published sources are never acceptable to support controversial claims about a topic that the writer openly advocates (or opposes). And, no, no one here was appointed by an enemy of yours; as Cullen328 points out, you'll notice there are hundreds of other articles being evaluated alongside this one, as part of the content review process that keeps this encyclopedia working. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Disregarding any subject, serious offence Your patrolling team and new additions are abusing 'numerology' and 'maths methods'. This is a serious offense, nobody can treat any subject of knowledge as inferior, rubbish, unscientific etc. Lack of links doesn't mean the subject/content is bad. The contents of Prasant had been published in many local newspapers in many cities across India, but the only problem is getting its online version for links.SillyLilies (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: I can't see anything to suggest that Prasant's observations have been published in the sort of source that would meet WP:NUMBER and there is nothing appearing when I searched at MathWorld, for example. Currently the article only has a single primary source- although appearing on a news site, the author is not an independent journalist. As such, I would agree with the analysis presented by Bryanrutherford0 that − in terms of how Wikipedia content is categorised − this is original research and unverifiable. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * When I explored your recommended site MathWorld, i found strange things there. Mathworld is carrying sponsored contents- numerology 26 articles, too much discussion on Christian community's favorite 'beast' number. Is that site scientific then?

And the site is carrying 'baseball' and '10 pins' maths topic, multiple times. Clearly, sponsored contents. How could a simple less wealthy mathematician Prasant could get his maths uploaded there?SillyLilies (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No DeleteBut how could WP numbers criteria be met when the mathematician Prasant has developed maths methods superior than the professional mathematicians? They won't include his methods, or review it.. Ego problem. Wiki rules are quite unnatural. Why would Sachin copy or use the batting techniques of Dhoni? Or mention about it in his books n writings? Are there any professional mathematician, devoted exclusively to this cause...reviewing maths methods of an Indian person? SillyLilies (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW delete. Mathematically incoherent, unsourced and likely unsourceable, fails WP:NFT. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Occasional Exceptions NFT - If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. SillyLilies (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * NotabIlity only for the Rich? When you search google news, you will find news injected by highly wealthy persons only. More than 100-500 news related with bollywood film. Check those articles, they are nothing less than promotional pamphlets. My question is- wiki demands notability, this comes from news articles, but the media covers news only related with rich persons, does that seriously mean the contents of an ordinary scientist/mathematician is not notable?

Wiki should not be too much mechanical, it should see through the tactics of these news sources. All the wiki articles related with bollywood films, to the count of 3000 above, are having reference links of such promotional nature. They are purely sponsored news articles. Wiki should reject such paid sources and accept the honest contents even though unsourced.SillyLilies (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * ''' Probe the identity of wiki moderators I want the wiki owners to probe the genuineness of the members who have put my article into deletion list. They haven't given a satisfactory answer to- how did they spot my pages, beginning from P letter from 20,000 under-construction articles? Isn't it somebody's planned move to harm me, my pages and mathematician Prasant's works?

I want wiki owners to probe the real identity of the persons who have 1. patrolled my pages 2. recommending their deletions? What are their real names, are they genuine living persons or just 'identities' created for this purpose? In this fashion, they might try to harm my future pages too. Anybody could create an account in wiki and start harming my pages for one reasons or the other. SillyLilies (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You should read Wikipedia's policy on Ownership of articles They are not "yours" by any stretch of the imagination. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And also read WP:OUTING. Demanding real names from editors who haven't already provided them is a violation of Wikipedia policy. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then how could we/wiki expose their fraud, if they are free to hide their real identities? Editing other members's page should require the establishment of the genuiness of the editor. And why none of my quieries have been answered in a satisfactory manner? And the moderators haven't yet submitted their written apology for treating 'numerology' 'maths' and 'prasant' as rubbish, superstition etc. Why not yet?SillyLilies (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete Patently fails WP:OR and WP:GNG. Only defender of the page has clear WP:COIPianoDan (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * nice comedy, what about the 2000 or more bollywood movie pages. Maths is never for income, but yes the movie pages definitely are. Gabbar is Back Promotionary nature of Gabbar's ref links. It is just a wordpress blog made to look like a news site. They tricked easily and the film has already amassed 45 crores. Were were you, your detailed rules, long brigade of moderators?SillyLilies (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Now no delete needed Proper reference added Now, the process of adding proper reference has begun. Already a strong source has been added, the AIFAS link. It is the all India national level reputed institution for astrology research. And why none of my quieries have been answered in a satisfactory manner? And the moderators haven't yet submitted their written apology for treating 'numerology' 'maths' and 'prasant' as rubbish, superstition etc. Why not yet?SillyLilies (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The new link that's been added appears marginally more credible than the previous ones, but the publication seems to be an astrologers' trade magazine (however much it wishes to present itself as an academic journal), and the article is, like all the others, written by Prasant. What are the criteria for the inclusion of articles in this "journal"? What sort of peer review have its articles undergone? What sort of attempts are there to replicate the "research" published in this magazine?
 * In any case, what remains absent is any indication that reputable sources independent of Prasant are devoting significant coverage to these ideas. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:FRINGE/PS. It's hardly worth debating the references when the whole article is blatant nonsense. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2015 (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.