Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reid W. Barton


 * 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   keep. Spartaz Humbug! 05:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Reid W. Barton

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The subject does not satisfy WP:PROF. Need debate on whether 4 Putnam medals or other citations are enough. Dmcq (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There is some discussion leading up to this AfD at WT:WPM Dmcq (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will say weak keep for now. This is not your usual vanity page, the subject seems to be a notable mathematitian (judging by contests won). I think the project can afford to include borderline cases like this. I acan be persuaded to change my vote if it is shown that sources are false/not independent or some other violation. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply. "The subject seems to be a notable mathematician (judging by contests won)." Surely you do not believe that the sorts of mathematics contests that someone has won is an indicator as to how good a mathematician he/she is? (Most mathematicians have not won any "mathematics competitions" at all, depending on what one calls "competition".) I definitely agree that winning notable competitions can be a good argument for having a Wikipedia article. (In agreement with #2 of WP:PROF.) But winning notable competitions is definitely not a convincing argument for being a good mathematician. PS  T  01:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are some related AfD discussions. The article Arthur Rubin was nominated for deletion three times:, , .  Rubin is one of the few other individuals to have won the Putnam competition the maximum number of times.  However, that article was not kept solely on the basis of the Putnam winnings, and so may not be the best model for a keep vote.  Likewise, the AfD for IMO gold medalist Darij Grinberg (Articles for deletion/Darij Grinberg) closed as delete, but that is also a fairly weak precedent, since one IMO gold is clearly not comparable to four golds and four Putnam victories.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is comparable to previous discussions: the issue is qualitatitive, i.e. whether to consider IMO victories notable at all, not quantitative. I also see problems with arguing for notability in any context based on "being the best so far": that is an approach more suitable for a periodic publication such as the Guiness record book. Arcfrk (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:BLP1E, fails WP:PROF (the listed papers have 3 and 8 citations, respectively), poorly sourced. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:prof is satisfied by any one of the criteria. Agree he fails most (if not all) points other than #2, but that one seem unambiguous to me. de Bivort 21:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * for full disclosure, I am personal friends with Gabriel Carroll, whose article should probably meet the same fate as Barton's. That said, I do have some understanding of the significance of being a Putnam finalist. de Bivort 23:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * neutral definitively meets the criteria of wp:prof. #2: "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." Winning the Putnam is a prestigious honor at the national level. It's like winning the NCAA basketball tournament, but in mathematics. de Bivort 21:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But it's a student honour, not the kind of professional honour WP:PROF is referring to (i.e. ir's not the Fields Medal). And, for that matter, the claim that he won the Putnam is unsourced. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In any case, according to the subject's CV (which can't be used as a source), he was a Putnam fellow 3 times, not 4. -- Radagast 3  (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That CV is out of date. He won it four times: see the maa site now referenced in the article.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Putnam is not the kind of award that WP:PROF has in mind, since Putnam is a student level competition, rather than an academic award for research achievements. Item 9 in WP:PROF specifically excludes student level awards: "Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1." Nsk92 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I had missed that. And yes, now it seems #2 doesn't apply. changing vote to neutral, as I think the criteria are now too restrictive. Seems there should be room in the encyclopedia for a handful of articles on the students who were the best of their generation at the college level. de Bivort 21:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, all the awards/prizes listed are in student level competitions, so they do not count towards passing WP:PROF; the publication and citability data is quite limited for the moment so the subject definitely does not pass WP:PROF for now. I suppose one could try to argue notability on general WP:BIO or even WP:ATHLETE grounds, but that seems a bit of a stretch to me. Nsk92 (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, he has been specially noted for his achievements by the Science journal with an article starting 'Even in the rarefied world of mathematics competitions, Reid Barton is one of a kind' so I think he probably satisfies notability under WP:BASIC. Dmcq (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Even if it seems clear that this article does not meet WP:PROF, the consensus that has been developed for academics, it is not clear that WP:PROF is an appropriate guideline to be used here. These additional criteria (WP:PROF, WP:ATHLETE, and so on) are just summaries of usual arguments that arise in several instances, not exhaustive rules. As the article does not assert the notability of the person as an academic but as an (uniquely?) exceptionally successful participant in various contests, saying "does not meet WP:PROF" does not seem relevant here (to me). It is better to think about notability from scratch. Shreevatsa (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering notability from scratch, I don't think that success in youth contests demonstrates notability. Per WP:BLP1E I think we should be very conservative about including articles for contest winners. However, given that the subject is pursuing an academic career, WP:PROF does seem like the standard I would look for to keep the article. That is not met here. For all these reasons, I think that we should not have an article on this individual at this time. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For athletes, anyone drafted out of college in the first two rounds of the NBA draft is considered notable. That's dozens of college youth who, as you might say, only won contests. And yet, they are considered notable. The putnam is extraordinarily challenging. It has 120 possible points - the median score for thousands of students who take it is 1 or 2 points. Barton and the other "winners" typically score around a hundred. It is incredibly impressive, and proof of near savant-level mathematical capabilities. de Bivort 02:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As a mathematician I am very familiar with the Putnam exam. The issue whether WP:ATHLETE is too accomodating can be left for another day. The subject here is not an athelete, but an aspiring academic. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? This article could be written mentioning the contest accomplishments, with current status only later. People are whatever they are notable for — after all, we write of George W. Bush as a former president, not as "public speaker and aspiring author". Youth contests may not demonstrate notability as an academic, but a record meriting mention from Science is independently notable among those who follow them. BLP1E does not apply, because this is not about a single event but several rather different contests spanning several years (a decade, if you include recent ones) — AFAIK Reid Barton is the only person to have such a great record in both mathematics and programming contests, let alone a perfect score at IMO and first place at IOI. Shreevatsa (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of BLP1E I would count all the math contests as a single "event." As I said, my reading of the policies is that we should be extremely conservative about having articles on people who might only be known for something they did in their youth. The subject is not notable in the non-wikipedia sense, does not meet the notability standard for academics, and any GPG-style notability is moderated by BLP1E. Weighing all those things, I don't believe we should have an article on the subject yet. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 10:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. One of the exceptional candidates of IMO. Notable, IMHO. --bender235 (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails PROF. The Morgan, IMO and Putnam are student competitions, not professional awards, as noted above. They may be a correlated to future achievement so there is a better than average chance that this person may meet PROF in the future, but WP:NOTCRYSTAL says don't try to anticipate this. There may be a case for general notability based on coverage of the IMO in the popular press, but this seems dubious at best. For some reason these competitions don't get much attention in the media. The analogy with sports competitions fails for this reason; for some reason these do attract attention in the media.--RDBury (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The appropriate test for inclusion seems not to be WP:PROF, but rather in this case WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."  The exposee in Science on the subject of the article easily meets these requirements.  In addition, the subject seems to be clearly of essential interest to those researching mathematics competitions, as he is the first-ever four-time IMO gold medalist, and one of only seven people ever to achieve the maximum number of wins in the Putnam.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How does WP:BLP1E relate to your analysis? It seems like, following that text, we could mention the wins in the articles on the IMO and the Putnam exam, if the encyclopedic interest is only in the fact that he has won those contests multiple times. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are other articles in the IMO/Putnam genre for which a WP:BLP1E argument might be stronger, but here I think we would lose something by merging mention of the scores to the main IMO and Putnam articles. The subject performed singularly in multiple competitions, including the Putnam, the IMO, and the IOI, not just one or the other.  So WP:BLP1E should not be treated as a mandate, but rather as a guiding principle.  In this case, I believe that organizing this information into a separate article about the subject brings his singular achievement more clearly into focus.  In addition, the ancillary facts about the subjects life, as discussed in the Science article, do seem relevant to developing a complete biographical picture of the subject as something of a polymath.  While this doesn't directly influence the notability of the subject, it is unusual enough that I think it deserves some mention rather than being cut so that the remainder of the article can be made to fit multiple merge targets.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I follow you, although we don't agree on the overall judgment. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * weak keep. Essentially by Sławomir Biały's argument above. However the article needs a rewrite, some of the discussed sources here are currently still missing in the article and some of the curent content is not accurate or at least misleading. Barton is not the top winner of IMO medals, that's currently Christian Reiher.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Found a book referencing him a number of times: 'Count Down: Six Kids Vie for Glory at the World's Toughest Math Competition By Steve Olson' Most notably page 117 says that of the 119 individuals on US teams as of the 42nd Olympiad no one was as accomplished as Reid Barton. Dmcq (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is true, as Nsk92 points out above, that undergrad awards don't count toward satisfying WP:PROF, but I would propose that he passes under general notability guidelines. The Putnam carries a prestige at the national level far outdistancing most types of recognition at the undergrad level, which most people outside the world of mathematics do not necessarily appreciate. This is only partially reflected in the heft of its article here at WP. Moreover, Barton is one of only a handful of people (seven actually, according to our WP page) to have ever attained 4-time-fellow status. Coupled with his unusual success in winning other named awards and prizes, all of which have their own dedicated articles here at WP (e.g. 4-time-gold at the International Mathematical Olympiad and winning the Morgan Prize) and the fact that there's a dedicated article about him in one of the world's most prestigious science journals (Mackenzie, D. (2001) IMO's Golden Boy Makes Perfection Look Easy, Science 293(5530), 597.), I find it difficult to see how this person is not notable under WP:GNG. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not an academic directory. The topic is notable and that is sufficient. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Slawomir Bialy and Agricola44. Barton does not meet WP:PROF, but I do think he meets the GNG. Ozob (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Win 4 times gold medal at IMO is absolutely exceptional event ! Such guy of course should be noted. And he is the first to do it. Alexander Chervov (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:PROF, as amply demonstrated above. Most of the content consists of laudatory trivia and is neither notable nor verifiable via secondary sources. Regardless of one's opinion of the difficulty of winning IMO, Putnam, etc they are not independently notable. Also, since Wikipedia is not a directory, arguments about "completeness of coverage" and "red links in IMO articles" seem ill-advised (such red links can be created &mdash; and sometimes they are &mdash; each time a book or paper is cited; the best solution is to de-link). Arcfrk (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. As far as I can tell, all of the statements made in the article are currently supported by secondary sources, so your post doesn't quite jibe with me.  Perhaps you haven't looked at the article since you first raised this issue at WT:WPM?  There were, at that time, some issues with the citation style that obscured the references, but these have mostly been resolved now.  Also, I don't think anyone here is arguing on the basis of completeness of coverage, nor was the issue of redlinks in IMO articles even raised here.  It was raised at WT:WPM, but not presented as a reason to keep the article.  Most of the keep votes here are based on the argument that the subject of the article is notable, as evidenced by coverage in secondary sources (currently the Science article and a book with non-trivial coverage of the subject).   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Another Comment. Each of the awards you mentioned has its own dedicated WP page (see above), so they are indeed notable for our purposes. And I sense that some here are unaware that Science is among the half-dozen most prestigious scientific publications in the world. Having a dedicated write-up in that journal essentially makes one notable ipso facto. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC).
 * 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.