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.
Strong Keep - I'm not sure where the notability issue arises. Mitra created an entirely novel theory for explaining the objects we commonly call black holes. He has published numerous items on the subject (see the MECO page for most of them) and has been featured in several articles. He should definitely have his own page. -bobby19:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The question is whether he meets WP:PROF. Robert seems to be claiming that he meets it MECO and criterion 5. I haev not however seen any evidence that MECO is a signficiant or well-known concept in the field. While he has papers published in respectabe journals, most of the articles about him (such as this one) make clear that he has gotten little or no attention from the mainstream astrophysics community. This position would be subject to change if someone can convince me otherwise or so that he meets another criterion of WP:PROF. JoshuaZ 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to Delete given that what's below is apparently the best argument for keeping. JoshuaZ21:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would argue that it is a significant concept in the field of astrophysics because it proposes an alternative to black holes. This is significant just as alternative theories for the big bang are significant. Until someone can come out and prove one way or another that one theory is absolutely correct, any plausible hypothesis (which MECO certainly is) deserves to be debated. Combine this rationale with the numerous articles published on the subject (found on the MECO page, some of which review Mitra's work) and we are left with a clear candidate for crit 5 of WP:Prof. -bobby20:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Absolutely not. The standard for whether something is significant in a field is whether people in the field have found it significant. The above claim is particularly hard to swallow given the standard of having to "prove one way or another that one theory is absolutely correct" since this never happens in science by definition. We need evidence astrophysicists find the idea notable, not that you or some random individual or even a few astrophysicists find it "plausible" Furthermore, I fail to see "numerous" articles about the subject. JoshuaZ21:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A few astrophysicists finding it plausible constitute "multiple independent" sources and hence satisfies the notability crit. As such, "people in the field" have found it significant satisfying your criterion. As long as plausible alternatives to describing so called black holes exist, and until we eliminate them as possible theories, they are notable and worthy of inclusion so that researchers and anybody else who is curious can get a sense for all theories proposed and not just the most popular one (quick note so I don't get pegged for this: I'm not suggesting that alternate theories presented on wikipedia should be taken as fact; I'm just saying it's a good place to get a general sense about a field before doing some solid research within a good library). I don't understand your comment about absolute certainty "never happens in science by definition". I have never seen a definition of science which does not allow for certainty. I am certain, for example, that the moon revolves around the earth, and the earth around the sun. This was not always widely believed, and at one point this theory would have been considered absurd. As we expand the limits of the known, things that once seemed like pipe dreams become very plausible, and can (in time) become certainties. I'm not sure quite where I'm going with this, but I'm also not sure what your objection to MECO is. I am admittedly not into astrophysics (math is my comfort zone) and perhaps you are better versed in this issue than I. However, from what I've read, Mitra's theory is notable enough to warrent its own wikipedia page, which seems to indicate that Mitra deserves one as well (not an acid test, but I've already cited a crit which I believe is met and maybe this line of reasoning works better for you). -bobby21:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I have my reservations about the notability of this person, but this may be a concept that catches on, and I think I would err on the side of keep. --Kf4bdytalkcontribs20:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it catches on we can have an article about it then. That's the rule for everything whether they are scientific theories or bands or politicians or small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. JoshuaZ21:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Useless Comment - Why is somebody who quotes Douglass Adams (the furry creatures bit) so averse to a page for someone who presents an alternate theory for one of space's greatest mysteries? Just curious, no need to respond. -bobby21:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not averse to his ideas. They sound fascinating and I've added some of his papers to my list of physics papers to read when I have time. The issue is whether he has yet become notable enough to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Unfortunately he hasn't. JoshuaZ22:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — A quick google search reveals that many sources feel this work to be an important new concept (point 5) and (b), along with Mitra's previous concept - that of MECOs. I'm going to mention this in the article, and add a source. As we have an article on MECOs, it seems only right that we have an article on the person who decided they existed. Should the sicentist himself fail the notability test, but the concept pass, then I'd suggest merge and redirect to Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object. Martinp2323:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really, really weak keepDelete. The fact that the article asserts black holes can not have magnetic fields makes me EXTREMELY suspicious about reliability. However, he appears to just barely meet WP:BIO. I'm going to at least clean up the scientific errors in this now. -Amarkovbabble00:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some more research, and I don't believe he meets WP:BIO. I've heard of the theory, but never connected to him. I would have gone with weak delete, except for the aforementioned "black holes can't have magnetic fields" assertion. Before anyone complains, I don't think it should be deleted because I believe that is wrong (which it IS), the fact that the assertion is made just casts doubt on the rest. -Amarkovbabble00:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you that black holes can have magnetic fields. They are known to retain both the angular momentum and the electrical charge of the object that created the black hole. Any rotating electrically chrged object will have a magnetic field. --EMS | Talk03:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we follow the principle of The standard for whether something is significant in a field is whether people in the field have found it significant for all AFDs. Is this an official policy. I follow this. I never comment on areas where I know little. But I find many people (including few Indians) who does not even have an iota of knowledge about India or India related fields, say delete without even reading the full debate or caring to look for references Doctor Bruno 01:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His field is not "India". His field is science. If notability were claimed based on something like being an Indian figure, your comment would have some merit. But notability is claimed based on a scientific theory. Thus, it is SCIENTISTS who must find him significant. -Amarkovbabble02:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, there is a problem. To meet notability standards, anyone should be able to find information on a person, not just certain people. To say delete for non-notability without trying to find references is bad, but specialists shouldn't be the only ones who can find some information. -Amarkovbabble05:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The issue is the notability of Dr. Mitra, not the notablity of the MECO theory. First of all, the MECO theory is not extraordinary, but instead is one of many theories that seek to explain how general relativity really does not permit black holes to exist. I personally have reason to believe that all such theories are mistaken, but will not contest the MECO as an encyclopedic subject due to the attention that it has garnered. My issue instead is one of whether Dr. Mitra is automatically becomes encyclopedic because he has contributed to the MECO concept. I really fail to see that. Instead I see an article about a relatively minor scientist that is very unlikely to ever be more than a stub. Even now it says little more than that Dr. Mitra is a contributor to the MECO concept, somcething that can already be inferred from the MECO article. Please recall that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. --EMS | Talk03:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see no notability in those links. The first link is to the same article as the second link, and the third link is to a magazine article that is mostly a cut-and-paste job from that same article. So in the end there is only one article that you are referencing. To make matters worse, this business of "challenging Hawking" is a standard "crackpot" tactic. Also, Hawking radiation has nothing to do with Mitra's MECO concept. So the article being linked to speaks more of a fringe scientist trying to make himself look good than a notable scientist talking about his work. --EMS | Talk06:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Well my point is that the largest Indian newspaper and website have found the scientist notable enough to write an article about him. Even if it is the same article, it features in both the sites making him notable outside of the scientific community. -- Lost(talk)07:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Being noted does not make you notable. That article fails to give Mitra a standing beyond being one of the main contributors to the MECO, and while notable the MECO remains a fairly obscure theory. --EMS | Talk15:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a second look at the article, I also think a Merge/Redirect will be better. The article doesn't have much content except his association with MECO theory. utcursch | talk12:18, 8 November 2006 (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.