Talk:Gabriel Carroll

Untitled
In short, don't post obviously personal information. Danielfong 08:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article have basic information, such as his birth date and place?

Krementz (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

WP: Notability
These articles all follow the same generic template: blah blah is a winner of (insert contest here), (insert contest here), and (insert contest here). Attended/is attending (insert university here) from (year) to (year) etc.

No doubt IMO, Putnam, etc. are significant competitions. But do we really need a separate article for every such winner? Might as well wait until they become professors and have actually published some papers, or made some other contribution to academia/society instead of simply winning a contest. Not to mention that these contests are directed towards the undergraduate/high school level.

See Articles_for_deletion/Tiankai_Liu and Articles_for_deletion/Yi_Sun for other similar articles that passed AfD and were deleted for non-notability.

- Wikipedian06 07:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Carroll seemingly satisfies the Academic Notability criterion 6: The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. He "actually" did publish a paper called "the cube recurrence" with D Speyer. Debivort 10:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not everybody who publishes a paper or wins some undergraduate prize is notable. Gabriel Carroll is a good example of a person who is famous in a specific crowd (math competition people) and is essentially unknown outside of that crowd; this is not considered notable in Wikipedia. Doubtless one day he will be, but he's not there yet. 128.36.41.44 (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with this line of thinking. These articles are written from what appears to be self-promotion. I believe that listing award winners for mathematics competitions is a warranted inclusion, but giving them each a page where they list all of their life's accomplishments (none of which would meet the Wikipedia's notability guideline) is unwarranted. Avangion (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This particular discussion is pretty much a word-for-word clone of the discussion at Talk:Reid W. Barton. Why not just discuss everything there instead of editing in a message two times? Temperal xy 19:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)