Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ekansh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 (closing as speedy). Neutralitytalk 14:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ekansh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Bio of a very young Indian mathematician. Total absence of independent references. (The English of this article and of this Wikipedia article suggest that both are written by Ekansh himself.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If his claim of solving the Odd Perfect Number conjecture is true then there should be an article on him, but his paper doesn't seem to have been refereed or published yet. His full(?) name seems to be Ekansh Kumar. Have mathematicians started to follow pop stars and footballers in only using one name?? Dingo1729 (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete So far as I can tell, his claim to be a fellow of Trinity College seems to be false, so that makes me doubtful of everything else he has written. Dingo1729 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not on this list. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence in MathSciNet or Google scholar of actual mathematical publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence to show this is not a hoax or a fraud. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- delete - I've tagged it as BLPROD for now, as there are no references. There's a claim of notability, but no support. Possible speedy as a hoax. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The first sign of a crank is they claim to have a proof a famous conjecture but somehow no one has published it yet. The fact that much of the article is by a single person also leads me to suspect self-promotion.--RDBury (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - total nonsense; a self-promotional hoax. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.