Talk:Reid W. Barton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Without doubt this gentleman is one of the greatest, if not greatest minds and achievers to have graced the International olympiads, but to write "academics in general" would seem to imply that he is one of the greatest ever mathematicians/computer scientists of all time. Blnguyen 05:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Officially homeschooled since third grade, Barton took part time classes [...] in Swedish, Finnish, French, and Chinese." Doesn't this snippet make it clear that something is seriously wrong with this Wikipedia entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.248.109 (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP: Notability[edit]

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 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tiankai_Liu and Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Barton seemingly satisfies the Academic Notability criterion 6: The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debivort (talk • contribs) 10:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He won the same honors that the other two did (now deleted articles). Wikipedian06 17:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I guess those other two deletions were mistakes then. Is there an Articles for Restoration procedure> Debivort 18:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Notability criterion 6 refers to a "notable award" without, unfortunately, explaining what this is supposed to mean. But I think it is reasonable to interpret as covering awards given to academics for their academic work and not to student success in competitions and contests (note that competitions and contests are not part of the "adult" academic world). I don't think it should be applied to IMO and Putnam winners. Plclark 08:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Plclark[reply]

Nothing in the criterion mentions that it applies to adults only - which would also introduce systemic bias. Debivort 21:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to understand why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Penn_State_Nittany_Lions_football_team should be an article but people think we should delete Reid Barton, Gabriel Carroll, Tiankai Liu, et al. Rewarding mediocrity? 128.103.11.166 15:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion has drifted too far from WP policy which is the means by which it should be resolved. Here is a reliable source about Barton's notability: [1]. Here's a published book about the contests. I think that's sufficient. Debivort 21:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Not everybody who publishes a paper or wins some undergraduate prize is notable. Reid Barton 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) 18:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really and truly doubt that even 5% of the population outside of the "math competition people" (and professional mathematicians as well) knows who Andrew Wiles is. Also, another book. Temperalxy 19:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wiles is highly recognized in academia. IMO/Putnam medalists aren't. I've learned about Wiles in many math courses I took in college. On the other hand, I've never heard of the math olympiad winners outside of the winners' lists. Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, maybe I should start an AfD nom to get more opinions? Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really still discussing this?? Start and AfD if you like - but whether or not you have heard about these people in (of all things) your courses, is not the criterion the evaluators at AfD will use. They will use the project wide criteria of Notability which have been demonstrated already. de Bivort 04:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually EVERY single MINOR league hockey, basketball, football, and baseball player is on wikipedia. Virtually every single minor actor is listed on this - even if virtually no one knows who they are. And this gentleman, who has basically rewritten academic achievement at the college and high school level by winning competitions by almost unimaginable margins in some case - is not 'notable'? Alot of people look up Barton - relative to most minor league sports players and probably even some low level pro athletes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.158.30.212 (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Minor league sports are more notable than math competitions. There are many undergraduate competitions, and many of them may have rabid followings who look up to winners, but that does not make them notable. Winners of the Rhodes Scholarship are more notable than Putnam winners, and very few of them have their own article. In particular, very little in this article is notable aside from the fact that he won several Putnam competitions. This should therefore be noted in the Putnam article and this article should be omitted. In particular, who cares if he was home schooled, teaches summer camp, scored high on an AP test or can play music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.175.79 (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moot. See above and WP:NOTE. 03:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Browsing the web, I am very surprised to find this article here. I do not understand what makes being a top scorer on Putnam notable. I know that it is difficult (I have given it). But, according to any objective criteria, has it advanced our knowledge? Has his work created a new field of mathematics? I think that anyone would agree that solving problems with known solutions is perhaps satisfying but is not the yardstick of notability. And, what about the other sciences? How many people in physics gain fame for rederiving relativity? What about defining the structure of DNA again? I think that this is a systemic problem in Wikipedia in which entries are essentially resumes. Please understand that in no way do I mean to undermine Reid's remarkable achievements. I am sure that in the future, he will deserve to be here. But, till that time, I strongly feel that this article belongs in IMO's website or the Putnam's website but not in a general interest space like Wikipedia.Tyger25 (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above and WP:NOTE. de Bivort 18:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The french article on Reid Barton, is about the length the english article should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.18.153 (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just my 2 cents: I think this article belongs in Wikipedia as he is a notable competitor at the international level. If female Olympic gymnasts are in Wikipedia, why not great IMO participants? They are about the same ages too, and I doubt performing a double twisting Yurchenko vault has advanced human society. Facts about his childhood or background is interesting. But I agree this article should be abridged. Angry bee (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is no longer listed as a graduate student at Harvard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.48.39 (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reid W. Barton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reid_W._Barton&oldid=1199568590"