801:: 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.--
271:"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
1109:? 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
683:
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
878:
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
830:
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
531:
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
981:
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,
926:. 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
312:. 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 (
252:
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
883:
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
753:
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
427:
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.
546:
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.
636:, 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
947:
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.
873:
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
1084:, 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
851:
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. — Carl
599:, 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
1105:. 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
982:
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
754:
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. — Carl
1088:, arguments about "completeness of coverage" and "red links in IMO articles" seem ill-advised (such red links can be created — and sometimes they are — each time a book or paper is cited; the best solution is to de-link).
407:
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.
684:
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.
1117:
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).
155:
696:
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. — Carl
227:
734:
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
336:
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
826:: "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
662:
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. — Carl
722:
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
110:
739:) — 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.
149:
313:
1137:. 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
974:
1141:
is among the half-dozen most prestigious scientific publications in the world. Having a dedicated write-up in that journal essentially makes one notable
658:
I think we should be very conservative about including articles for contest winners. However, given that the subject is pursuing an academic career,
316:) 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.
115:
395:
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.
983:
341:
context based on "being the best so far": that is an approach more suitable for a periodic publication such as the
Guiness record book.
83:
78:
17:
87:
1063:
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.
994:
the fact that there's a dedicated article about him in one of the world's most prestigious science journals (Mackenzie, D. (2001)
736:
486:
462:
374:
310:
307:
70:
527:
has in mind, since Putnam is a student level competition, rather than an academic award for research achievements. Item 9 in
285:
170:
1125:
891:
838:
510:
323:
137:
1172:
36:
1068:
1029:
Knowledge (XXG) is a general encyclopedia, not an academic directory. The topic is notable and that is sufficient.
258:
726:
as a former president, not as "public speaker and aspiring author". Youth contests may not demonstrate notability
280:
1119:
885:
832:
504:
317:
131:
1171:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1034:
654:
Considering notability from scratch, I don't think that success in youth contests demonstrates notability. Per
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
570:; the publication and citability data is quite limited for the moment so the subject definitely does not pass
279:.) But winning notable competitions is definitely not a convincing argument for being a good mathematician.
1154:
1129:
1097:
1072:
1055:
1038:
1020:
957:
939:
912:
895:
864:
842:
810:
793:
766:
748:
709:
691:
674:
649:
612:
591:
554:
541:
514:
498:
474:
435:
415:
402:
386:
350:
327:
290:
262:
242:
216:
199:
127:
52:
1064:
304:
254:
1110:
1106:
566:, all the awards/prizes listed are in student level competitions, so they do not count towards passing
205:
177:
1150:
1016:
744:
645:
633:
579:
483:
459:
371:
1030:
789:
494:
470:
382:
163:
74:
1085:
1046:
per
Slawomir Bialy and Agricola44. Barton does not meet WP:PROF, but I do think he meets the GNG.
688:
551:
432:
412:
399:
875:
870:
848:
655:
600:
363:
503:
That CV is out of date. He won it four times: see the maa site now referenced in the article.
1138:
1001:
238:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1081:
995:
970:
819:
659:
637:
629:
625:
621:
571:
567:
528:
524:
451:
367:
276:
187:
1093:
935:
927:
806:
640:" does not seem relevant here (to me). It is better to think about notability from scratch.
346:
143:
1008:
823:
575:
1146:
1012:
740:
641:
587:
537:
1051:
953:
785:
723:
608:
212:
195:
66:
58:
907:
859:
761:
704:
685:
669:
548:
429:
409:
396:
987:
455:
300:
234:
49:
104:
1089:
931:
802:
480:
342:
1007:(5530), 597.), I find it difficult to see how this person is not notable under
275:
a good argument for having a
Knowledge (XXG) article. (In agreement with #2 of
973:, but I would propose that he passes under general notability guidelines. The
966:
583:
533:
482:(which can't be used as a source), he was a Putnam fellow 3 times, not 4. --
370:(the listed papers have 3 and 8 citations, respectively), poorly sourced. --
1047:
949:
624:, the consensus that has been developed for academics, it is not clear that
604:
208:
191:
458:). And, for that matter, the claim that he won the Putnam is unsourced. --
900:
OK, I follow you, although we don't agree on the overall judgment. — Carl
903:
855:
757:
700:
665:
628:
is an appropriate guideline to be used here. These additional criteria (
190:. Need debate on whether 4 Putnam medals or other citations are enough.
969:
points out above, that undergrad awards don't count toward satisfying
1113:, but not presented as a reason to keep the article. Most of the
1165:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
574:
for now. I suppose one could try to argue notability on general
869:
There are other articles in the IMO/Putnam genre for which a
784:. One of the exceptional candidates of IMO. Notable, IMHO. --
228:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
620:. Even if it seems clear that this article does not meet
100:
96:
92:
818:. The appropriate test for inclusion seems not to be
162:
299:
There are some related AfD discussions. The article
884:article can be made to fit multiple merge targets.
314:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Darij
Grinberg
582:grounds, but that seems a bit of a stretch to me.
204:There is some discussion leading up to this AfD at
176:
532:count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1."
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1175:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
997:IMO's Golden Boy Makes Perfection Look Easy
479:In any case, according to the subject's CV
222:
303:was nominated for deletion three times:
226:: This debate has been included in the
730:, but a record meriting mention from
523:Putnam is not the kind of award that
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
984:International Mathematical Olympiad
454:is referring to (i.e. ir's not the
1086:Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory
24:
1:
186:The subject does not satisfy
206:WT:WPM#Another vanity page?
1192:
977:carries a prestige at the
822:, but rather in this case
529:WP:PROF#Notes and examples
650:23:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
613:22:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
592:21:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
555:21:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
542:21:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
499:21:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
475:21:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
436:21:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
416:23:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
403:21:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
387:21:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
328:18:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
263:18:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
243:17:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
217:16:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
200:16:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
1168:Please do not modify it.
1155:13:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
1130:13:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
1098:03:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
1073:17:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
1056:23:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
1039:22:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
1021:15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
958:13:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
940:13:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
913:23:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
896:14:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
865:12:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
843:12:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
811:10:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
794:09:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
767:10:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
749:02:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
710:02:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
692:02:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
675:01:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
515:01:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
446:honour, not the kind of
351:03:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
291:01:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
53:05:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
831:wins in the Putnam.
44:The result was
1065:Alexander Chervov
965:. It is true, as
911:
863:
765:
708:
673:
293:
245:
231:
1183:
1170:
1145:. Respectfully,
1122:
1011:. Respectfully,
986:and winning the
928:Christian Reiher
901:
888:
853:
835:
755:
698:
663:
507:
490:
466:
378:
320:
288:
283:
267:
255:WildHorsesPulled
232:
181:
180:
166:
118:
108:
90:
34:
1191:
1190:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1173:deletion review
1166:
1135:Another Comment
1120:
886:
833:
505:
491:
488:
467:
464:
379:
376:
318:
286:
281:
123:
114:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1189:
1187:
1178:
1177:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1132:
1121:Sławomir Biały
1075:
1058:
1041:
1031:Colonel Warden
1024:
960:
942:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
887:Sławomir Biały
834:Sławomir Biały
813:
796:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
728:as an academic
724:George W. Bush
715:
714:
713:
712:
678:
677:
652:
615:
594:
560:
559:
558:
557:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
506:Sławomir Biały
487:
463:
439:
438:
421:
420:
419:
418:
405:
390:
389:
375:
356:
355:
354:
353:
331:
330:
319:Sławomir Biały
294:
265:
246:
184:
183:
120:
116:AfD statistics
67:Reid W. Barton
61:
59:Reid W. Barton
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1188:
1176:
1174:
1169:
1163:
1162:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1133:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1076:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1059:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1042:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1025:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1003:
999:
998:
993:
989:
985:
980:
976:
972:
968:
964:
961:
959:
955:
951:
946:
943:
941:
937:
933:
929:
925:
922:
914:
909:
905:
899:
898:
897:
893:
889:
882:
877:
872:
868:
867:
866:
861:
857:
850:
846:
845:
844:
840:
836:
829:
825:
821:
817:
814:
812:
808:
804:
800:
797:
795:
791:
787:
783:
780:
779:
768:
763:
759:
752:
751:
750:
746:
742:
738:
733:
729:
725:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
711:
706:
702:
695:
694:
693:
690:
687:
682:
681:
680:
679:
676:
671:
667:
661:
657:
653:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
616:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
595:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
562:
561:
556:
553:
550:
545:
544:
543:
539:
535:
530:
526:
522:
516:
512:
508:
502:
501:
500:
496:
492:
485:
481:
478:
477:
476:
472:
468:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
440:
437:
434:
431:
426:
423:
422:
417:
414:
411:
406:
404:
401:
398:
394:
393:
392:
391:
388:
384:
380:
373:
369:
365:
361:
358:
357:
352:
348:
344:
340:
335:
334:
333:
332:
329:
325:
321:
315:
311:
308:
305:
302:
298:
295:
292:
289:
284:
278:
274:
270:
266:
264:
260:
256:
251:
247:
244:
240:
236:
229:
225:
221:
220:
219:
218:
214:
210:
207:
202:
201:
197:
193:
189:
179:
175:
172:
169:
165:
161:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
129:
126:
125:Find sources:
121:
117:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1167:
1164:
1142:
1134:
1114:
1102:
1077:
1060:
1043:
1026:
1004:
996:
991:
988:Morgan Prize
978:
962:
944:
923:
880:
827:
815:
798:
781:
731:
727:
617:
596:
563:
456:Fields Medal
448:professional
447:
443:
424:
359:
338:
301:Arthur Rubin
296:
272:
268:
249:
223:
203:
185:
173:
167:
159:
152:
146:
140:
134:
124:
45:
43:
31:
28:
737:recent ones
442:But it's a
253:violation.
248:I will say
150:free images
1147:Agricola44
1143:ipso facto
1013:Agricola44
741:Shreevatsa
642:Shreevatsa
634:WP:ATHLETE
580:WP:ATHLETE
924:weak keep
847:How does
786:bender235
250:weak keep
235:• Gene93k
979:national
876:WP:BLP1E
871:WP:BLP1E
849:WP:BLP1E
656:WP:BLP1E
601:WP:BASIC
578:or even
484:Radagast
460:Radagast
372:Radagast
366:, fails
364:WP:BLP1E
297:Comment.
111:View log
1139:Science
1103:Comment
1082:WP:PROF
1002:Science
971:WP:PROF
945:Comment
881:Science
879:in the
828:Science
820:WP:PROF
732:Science
660:WP:PROF
638:WP:PROF
630:WP:PROF
626:WP:PROF
622:WP:PROF
618:Comment
572:WP:PROF
568:WP:PROF
525:WP:PROF
452:WP:PROF
450:honour
444:student
425:neutral
368:WP:PROF
277:WP:PROF
188:WP:PROF
156:WP refs
144:scholar
84:protect
79:history
50:Spartaz
1111:WT:WPM
1107:WT:WPM
1090:Arcfrk
1080:Fails
1078:Delete
1009:WP:GNG
975:Putnam
932:Kmhkmh
824:WP:GNG
803:RDBury
799:Delete
689:Bivort
576:WP:BIO
564:Delete
552:Bivort
433:Bivort
413:Bivort
400:Bivort
360:Delete
343:Arcfrk
273:can be
269:Reply.
128:Google
88:delete
967:Nsk92
584:Nsk92
534:Nsk92
171:JSTOR
132:books
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
1151:talk
1126:talk
1115:keep
1094:talk
1069:talk
1061:Keep
1052:talk
1048:Ozob
1044:Keep
1035:talk
1027:Keep
1017:talk
963:Keep
954:talk
950:Dmcq
936:talk
908:talk
892:talk
860:talk
839:talk
816:Keep
807:talk
790:talk
782:Keep
762:talk
745:talk
705:talk
670:talk
646:talk
609:talk
605:Dmcq
597:Keep
588:talk
538:talk
511:talk
495:talk
471:talk
383:talk
347:talk
324:talk
259:talk
239:talk
224:Note
213:talk
209:Dmcq
196:talk
192:Dmcq
164:FENS
138:news
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
46:keep
1005:293
992:and
930:.--
904:CBM
856:CBM
758:CBM
701:CBM
666:CBM
339:any
233:--
178:TWL
113:•
109:– (
1153:)
1128:)
1096:)
1071:)
1054:)
1037:)
1019:)
1000:,
990:)
956:)
938:)
906:·
894:)
858:·
841:)
809:)
792:)
760:·
747:)
703:·
686:de
668:·
648:)
632:,
611:)
603:.
590:)
549:de
540:)
513:)
497:)
473:)
430:de
410:de
397:de
385:)
362:.
349:)
326:)
309:,
306:,
282:PS
261:)
241:)
230:.
215:)
198:)
158:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
1157:.
1149:(
1124:(
1092:(
1067:(
1050:(
1033:(
1023:.
1015:(
952:(
934:(
910:)
902:(
890:(
862:)
854:(
837:(
805:(
788:(
764:)
756:(
743:(
707:)
699:(
672:)
664:(
644:(
607:(
586:(
536:(
509:(
493:(
489:3
469:(
465:3
381:(
377:3
345:(
322:(
287:T
257:(
237:(
211:(
194:(
182:)
174:·
168:·
160:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
130:(
122:(
119:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.