Talk:Larry Guth

Sources and notability

Blogs are not reliable secondary sources. And his own publications are not secondary sources at all. Can someone find some real sources that indicate notability here? Perchloric (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS explicitly allows self-published sources if they are by established experts in the subject area. All of the blog posts I added as sources meet this condition, as should have been clear to you from the fact that their authors are bluelinked. Additionally, most of the little "MR" links on his papers go to reviews of those papers by third parties. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Here's a quote from WP:SPS: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

* Being bluelinked in WP is not a criterion of notability or experthood. I agree that Shmuel Weinberger is an expert, not because he has a WP page but because his WP page gives sources that provide evidence of prominence and notability. This page is lacking such evidence, and I'm hoping someone can provide it.

* The MR links just go to the journal WP page. The numbers after them just go to the journal article. Can you be more specific about how to access those third-party reviews?

Perchloric (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um. You need to have MathSciNet access to see the reviews. Probably the easiest way is to find a nearby University library with internet access. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that MathSciNet is the electronic version of Mathematical Reviews which is available in paper at many math libraries. Tkuvho (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, some of these reviews are surprisingly long and detailed. Usually reviews in MR just repeat what's in the abstract of a paper, and sometimes they just copy the abstract unchanged. But the one for "Minimax problems related to cup powers" (by John F. Oprea) and the one for "The width-volume inequality" (by Andrea Sambusetti) both go on for significantly longer than that, a couple dozen lines of text (depending on screen size). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Given that WP:SPS explicitly forbids the use of self-published third-party sources in a BLP, can you replace the links to blogs with some other source that demonstrates notability? As for Mathematical Reviews, am I right in thinking that every paper published in MR is reviewed? If so, the existence of such reviews doesn't demonstrate notability, since they are basically just a published version of the referee reports that are written about every academic journal article. Perchloric (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]