Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics Competitions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Mathematics Competitions is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics Competitions, a collaboration created to improve and create articles related to mathematics competitions. Also see the project page and assessment table. Note that you do not have to edit the table every time an article's rating is changed; this is done automatically every few days by a bot.

When rating this article, you probably should leave a comment.
NA This article has been rated as na-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.


[edit] Everyone!

Please pay attention here. Do you think that Sam Vandervelde is notable enough to have an article? He IS currently running the Mandelbrot competition, so... Also, do you think that Richard Ruscyzk and Sandor Lehoczky are notable enough? Please petition this or something: David Eppstein wants to delete all three of these articles, essentially.

--Heero Kirashami (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my position. In general, I prefer to keep articles than to delete them. I think that in the state I tagged Vandervelde's article, it would be better not to keep it, but what I would prefer is that these articles be beefed up with real published third party sources documenting real significant achievements of these people, to the point where it's obvious that they're sufficiently notable to be kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. Should I remove the prod now? Temperalxy 03:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It never was a {{prod}}. But, you added: a link to a "Think Swiss Event Calendar" that seems to have nothing to do with Vandervelde; an "about us" page from the Mandelbrot competition (not third-party), an author bio from Vandervelde's books (again not really third-party), a book that happens to mention his name in the acknowledgements (not non-trivial), a Stanford Math Circle calendar that mentions his name briefly as one of a long list of speakers (not third party and not non-trivial), and another Stanford Math Circle page that mentions his name briefly as one of a longer list of team members (again, not third party and not non-trivial). The non-trivial ones among these are fine for verifying basic facts about him (per the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons), but where are the non-trivial published third-party sources that might convince someone that anyone outside of the Mandelbrot competition / Stanford math circle crowd thinks of him as noteworthy? Newspaper stories, say? —David Eppstein 04:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
For the "Think Swiss Event Calendar"... uh, actually, I don't know what I was thinking; there's a vague allusion to him in the third paragraph, which I probably had thought would qualify as proof of his existence or something similar. The other non-third-party sources I will remove, though I personally feel some of them are good enough to back up the rather non-important facts they claim to source. I'll go search for what you suggested now, and will post the source back here once/if I find one. Temperalxy 16:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there's a sentence stating him as coordinator of the Mandelbrot competition in the second part of the Swiss source, so I don't see why that wouldn't qualify as referencing that fact in an article. Temperalxy 16:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't it say on Wikipedia:Verifiability that as long as a questionable source is relevant to their notability, not contentious, not unduly self-serving, does not involve claims about third-parties, and such and such, that it is okay? I mean, it's like taking some information from someone's website. Furthermore, if someone like Petronella Wyatt, who began her own article and tried to sue Wikipedia over vandalism someone did to her article, then I think that Sam Vandervelde is noteworthy enough(the self-advocating Wikipedia-suing journalist or the notable, competition-co-founding mathematician? c'mon, you've got to feel some mroe sympathy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heero Kirashami (talk • contribs) 02:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
"Sympathy" is hardly a basis for notability for an article. Your first point, however (I assume you're referring to WP:SELFPUB), probably has some merit. Temperalxy 03:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as there's been no challenge for over a week, I'm going to close this discussion and remove the tag. Temperaltalk and matrix? 03:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)