Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. P. Gupta

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 redirect to Vizing's theorem. Result of the redirect to Vizing's theorem. A new paragraph block is added with two sentences, one stating the discovery and one stating the independent discovery with refs. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 08:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R. P. Gupta

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Citation counts are in the double digits only. Single decent reference is passing at best. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years and never been updated. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NPROF, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 07:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm always sad to see pre-internet mathematicians and scientists vanish from Wikipedia, because it's so hard for anyone to find out about them and their work. But I admit if there are no sources, there is no hope. All I can find is [1] which does discuss Gupta's work in some depth. It is unfortunate that he has such a common name, too; it makes it hard to search. Maybe there is something else out there, if someone's better at Google than me... Elemimele (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele: I had the same problem, so I got a second opinion before I nominated. I couldn't see much at all. scope_creep^Talk 12:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I very much feared that might be the case. I posted the one ref I found in the forlorn hope that someone else might come up with one or two more, and we might scrape Gupta into the Keeps, but I didn't for a moment suspect you of a beforeless nomination. Elemimele (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, India, Ontario, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Weak because, like Elemimele, I'm sad to see the removal of a productive pre-internet mathematician. But as I wrote on my talk page before the nomination, I don't see a case for notability. Citation counts are in the double digits only, the article says he is mostly known for being late to the party, and our source for that only gives him passing coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Our article on h-index states that Google Scholar/Scopus both have limited coverage of publications pre-1990. That said, I wasn't able to find very much coverage. JSTOR has [2], which just confirms the subject's doctorate, but most of the rest of the hits appear to be either authored papers or a politician of the same name. Can we merge it somewhere in case someone finds another source, possibly not in English? Espresso Addict (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If he was notable, there would be academic sources available, from everywhere. There is nothing. Is he is non-notable. Not even a mention at university, another sure sign he is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there enough here to perhaps support a redirect to Vizing's Theorem (with a brief mention there) as an alternative to deletion? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I suppose I should answer it. I don't know and i'm not sure. scope_creep^Talk 18:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vizing's theorem after adding a sentence. His independent co-discovery and first English-language publication 2-3 years after Vizing is sufficiently significant and well-sourced (with both the book source currently in the article and the source that Elemimele found) to deserve a mention in the History Section of Vizing's theorem. Felix QW (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could do this today. I will close it as a redirect, and take the pdf above and the book ref 2 and add a small section. scope_creep^Talk 07:33, 22 May 2022 (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.