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. AfD discussions are where editors discuss whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Here, the consensus is that the subject does not meet the inclusion criteria for an article in the encyclopedia at this time. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Hernan Pereyra[edit]

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

Non-notable. Article of recent creation, created in tandem with a claim of an elementary proof of Fermat's Last Theorem added to that page. The two references are to the index of a Proceedings volume of a conference from 2005 to justify the claim that the subject does cosmology; and to what seems to be an anonymous a press release of the claim of an elementary proof of FLT. The subject does not seem to be notable; Google provides links to self-created pages such as Facebook and linked-in, Youtube, etc. There is no evidence of notability. The creator of the page seems very likely to be the subject himself. I attempted a speedy deletion, but it was challenged because of the unsubstantiate, extremely-hard-to-credit claims of an elementary proof of FLT. Magidin (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is a rough translation of an article on Portuguese WP.

And a similar claim in the portuguese version of the Fermat's Last Theorem page of an elementary proof was added. I removed the addition to the latter. Magidin (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete and salt: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." WP:A7 calls for a credible claim of significance. A short proof (short enough to almost fit inside the margins of a book!) of the Fermat-Wiles Theorem would be big news, we would not need to be scraping for solid references. On Wikipedia, notability is judged by what has already occurred and been noticed by others (i.e., reputable independent sources), not by potential. Using Pereyra's own proposal of a proof of the theorem as a source of notability constitutes original research. After the alleged proof is validated by others and the news hits the headlines (if ever), THEN he can have an article. In the meantime, the editor of this article has been extremely uncooperative, has removed tags, engaged in edit wars, broken WP:3RR, and been blocked — such behavior indicates that should the page be deleted, it should also be salted. ubiquity (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable mathematician, and no useful WP:RSes turn up on a search. There's no way somebody finds a simple proof of FLT and proves Goldbach's conjecture in seven pages. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of being notable as a legitimate mathematician via WP:PROF and also no evidence of being notable as a crank. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no support for the claims in the article in any reliable source that I can find. If it were true that someone had published a proof of Fermat's last theorem by elementary methods, as claimed in the article, it would have taken the mathematical world by storm, and probably would also have been reported in non-mathematical mainstream news media too. This is either a hoax, or a promotional (most likely self-promotional) article about a crank who thinks he has a proof but hasn't, and thinks that Wikipedia is the way to get publicity for his mistaken idea of a proof. Either way, in my opinion it qualifies for speedy deletion (either as a hoax or as "made up"). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both I and Ubiquity attempted a speedy delete, but it was challenged by User:Teb728 (I disagree with Teb728's edit summary when removing the speedy delete tag, as it claims there are 'credible claims importance'; while, if true, the claims would certainly justify the importance, it is pretty clear to me that they are not credible claims). Rather than start an argument, I did this nomination. Magidin (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, if you want to speedily delete an article for being incredible, put the focus on credibility by tagging it ((db-hoax)), or ((hoax)). Or at least don’t emphasize “notability” in contested deletion replies: A7 is not about notability. —teb728 t c 22:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; but I would not call the page a hoax or the editor (assuming he is the subject) a hoaxer; on the basis of what I've found, he's a crank and deeply mistaken, not a hoaxer. So I would not have thought of using the "hoax" tag. By contrast, my understanding of A7 (particularly, lack of credible claims) indicated to me that it was the most accurate. Magidin (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I agree with Magidin, and I think that teb728 has misunderstood. Saying that a claim of significance in an article is not credible is by no means the same as saying that the whole article is a hoax. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Not a notable mathematician, and no indication of notability for any other reason. Salting is unnecessary; G4 would suffice in case of re-creation. Lagrange 613 02:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: is not a question of notability, is a question of mathematics !!!Editornovo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editornovo (talk • contribs) 02:50, 11 February 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

It is a question of notability: all article subjects must be notable. There is no special notability category or presumption for math-related articles. —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although it is not a reason for deletion of this article, it may be of interest to editors on this page to know that the same editor has created an article on the same subject on Portuguese Wikipedia, where it has been proposed for deletion on the grounds that it is an autobiographical article with notability unverifiable because of a lack of references to independent sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Srs Organizadores coloco que este artículo no tiene ninguna pretencion de autopromocion o publicidad, trata de colocar una solucion elementar del Ultimo Teorema de Fermat para las personas interesadas, asunto que considero relevante. Las referencias son fiables como se puede verificar. Infelizmente Wikipedia está presentando una resistencia infundada para elaborar el mismo en qualquier idioma . Coloco que la demonstracion existe fue divulgada y no hay posibilidad de refutacion .El motivo de ser colocada aqui no es para verificación . Siendo asi solicito una respuesta si wikipedia dara condiciones de terminar el articulo de lo contrario no vale la pena el esfuerzo.Editornovo  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editornovo (talk • contribs) 01:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above was also added to the talk page of the article. I am copying my translation and reply below. Magidin (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translation To the Organizers: I submit that this article does not pretend to be auto-promotion or publicity, it tries to place an elementary solution to Fermat's Last Theorem for those who may be interested, a matter that I consider relevant. The references are reliable as can be verified. Unhappily, Wikipedia is presenting an unfounded resistance to do this in any language. I submit that the proof exists was disseminated and there is no possibility of refuting. The reason for placing here is not for verification. Given that I request an answer whether Wikipedia will give conditions to finish the article; otherwise it is not worth the effort. (Translated by User:Magidin)

Si el proposito de el articulo es poner la "prueba" a disposicion de los interesados, entonces se trata de un intento de publicidad de la "prueba", y por ende no es permitido. El contenido de Wikipedia debe de tener tres caracteristicas: verificabilidad, punto de vista neutral, y no a resultados originales. Las citas que pones no son confiables ni verificables en el sentido que importa en Wikipedia. Por favor lee las politicas de Wikipedia para entender que significa eso y por que no son consideradas ni confiables ni verificables. El que la "prueba" sea, segun tu, correcta e irrefutable, is completa y absolutamente irrelevante: el principal criterio para inclusion en Wikipedia es verificabilidad, no si es cierto o falso. El umbral de inclusion es que se trate de un evento o personaje notable; no encontramos ninguna referencia fuera de lo que tu pones ni a la persona ni a sus supuestos exitos matematicos. Eso indica que hay una ausencia total de verificabilidad y de notabilidad. Esto es algo que cuenta a traves de todos los idiomas de Wikipedia, y esa es la razon por la que tu intento de agregarlo en portugues tambien esta siendo cuestionado. Revisa la politica de Wikipedia sobre que es considerado digno de inclusion, y que es considerado fuentes verificables y confiables, y si consigues que el tema llegue a esos niveles, sera considerado para inclusion.

Translation: If the purpose of the article is to put the "proof" before those who might be interested, then it is an attempt at publicity for the "proof" and therefore not permitted. Content in Wikipedia must meet three characteristics: verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. The citations/sources you put forth are neither verifiable nor reliable in the sense that matters for Wikipedia. Please read the policies of Wikipedia to understand what this means and why they are neither reliable nor verifiable. That the "proof" is, according to you, both correct and irrefutable, is completely and absolutely irrelevant: the main criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. El threshold for inclusion is that it be an event or person who is notable; we could not find any reference other than those you put forth either for the person nor for his supposed mathematical triumphs. This indicates that there is a total absence of verifiability and notability. This is something that matters across all languages of Wikipedia, and that is the reason your attempt at adding him in Portuguese is also being questioned. Review the policies of Wikipedia on what is considered worthy of inclusion, and what is considered a reliable and verifiable source, and if you manage to reach those levels, the subject will be considered for inclusion. Magidin (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Magidin le agradezco la traduccion, considero su colocacion como respuesta de los organizadores) Ya he leido las solicitudes de wikipedia y coloco que son en mi ver demasiadas, algunas contradictorias y otras obscuras. No creo que actualmente pueda ser llamada de una enciclopedia "free" (claro que tiene que tener sus margenes de orden y aceptabilidad), no se como era antes. Le hago transparecer este hecho, por ejemplo en la publicacion de la prueba del teorema de pitagoras (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem) (que es uno entre varios) y usted al mismo tiempo me dice que esto es una practica publicitaria? Sobre la fiabilidad de las referencias , lo son porque la universidad existe , la noticia sobre lanzamiento del la contribuicion del biografado existe y es verdadera, la publicacion existe, demas articulo existe publicado. Sobre la repercución del biografado y su contribuición , wikipedia al parecer solicita algo que no és obligatório, que el biografado y contribuicion sea famoso o comentado en mecanismo de busqueda , o destacada por medios de divulgación como diarios programas televisivos palestras en universidades etc, la noticia colocada se refiere unicamente al surgimiento de su contribuición, y hay que tener en cuenta que el biografado puede ser persona no interesada en repercusiones de otro tipo. Tambien no vá a encontrar repercución negativa, refutación, pues se trata de un teorema provado Por estos motivos vuelvo a colocar que la resistencia colocada por wikipedia es infundada. Saludos. (Editornovo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editornovo (talk • contribs) 11:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translation (Magidin, I thank you for the translation; I consider your reply as the answer of the organizers). I have read the policies of Wikipedia and I submit that they are in my view too many, some contradictory, others obscure. I do not believe that it can be currently called a "free" encyclopedia (of course they must have its boundaries for order and acceptability), I do not know how they were before. I make known this fact, for instancee, in the publishing of the proof of Pythagoras's theorem (one among many) and you at the same time tell me that this is an attempt at publicty? On the reliability of the sources, they are because the university exists, the news release on the publishing of the contribution by the subject exists and is true, the publication exists, the article exists and has been published. Over the notability of the subject and his contribution, wikipedia apparently requests something that is not mandatory, that the subject and contribution be famous or be commented via some search method, or noticed by the media such as newspapers, teleivison programs, universities, etc. the news release refers only to the beginning of the contribution, and one must take into account that the subject could be a person that is not interested in any other kind of notability. You will also not find any negative notice, refutation, since it is a proven theorem. For those reasons, I once again submit that wikipedia's resistance is unfounded. (Translated by User:Magidin

The above was also posted in Talk:Pablo Hernan Pereyra; you can see my reply there. Magidin (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2016 (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.