Talk:Ryan Williams (computer scientist)

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

Blogs are not wp:RS[edit]

There is nothing covering this scientist in the general press that I saw on a quick review. Since you clearly would dispute a PROD, I won't put one up and waste our time. A review of the general notability guidelines for persons might or might not be worthwhile.Shajure (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS specifically allows self-published sources such as blogs that are by recognized experts in the subject area. Richard Lipton is an expert in this sense. In any case, the standard you should be looking at is not the one you refer to, WP:GNG, but rather WP:PROF. Williams has a plausible claim of passing criterion #C1 there — certainly a strong enough one to remove a prod. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One can remove a PROD simply because one wants to, it requires no justification. Thus... no point in adding it. I don't see an independent reliable source that says "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed". But you don't need to convince me, I have no plan to kill the article... I do think the notability tag is appropriate though, at this point.Shajure (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A self-pub source won't show notability... an expert selfpub can provide useful information. Very different.Shajure (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The most frequently used way of measuring "significant impact" in academic deletion discussions is to look at the citation counts in Google scholar: [1]. By this standard, Williams has hundreds of reliably published sources attesting to the notability of his work. Of course, not all of them are going to say something nontrivial about it, but many of them likely are. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are deleting the tag without waiting even a few hours for discussion, I don't see any point in this. Please consider your repeated deletion of the tag, and consider restoring it.Shajure (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, notability tags don't lead to discussions. They just sit there making the article look ugly, something we should be trying to avoid in a BLP. Anyway, the discussion is here; what more do you want? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I wrote most of this article, exactly when Williams’s notability was established by a reliable third party, namely Lipton’s blog. That’s as reputable a source for establishing notability in the research community as you can get, note that the first “volume” of Lipton‘s blog entries now appears in book form (amazon link). (The Williams entry is too recent to have made it into the book.) So even if an editor holds the (invalid) position that blogs do not reliable sources make, the reputability of Lipton’s blog in the research community is easily established. Also note that the other publications I added each come with a proof of notability in the sense that they are prize-winners (“best paper awards”). Thore Husfeldt (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

notability[edit]

I don't see why this article is notable at the moment. It seems that the only justification for now is a result which is a small advance in circuit complexity. It can be argued that this is break through result but so far no further results have followed. Does a small single advance justify a page for the person on Wikipedia? I seriously doubt it. If there are other justifications please state them. In any case, I believe the notability tag should stay as long as the notability is not established. 74.198.9.167 (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I reverted your addition of the Notability tag. Please read Wikipedia's Notability guidelines for academics WP:PROF. The easiest case for establishing Williams's notability is by point 1 in the list of valid reasons (i.e., argue from significant impact). Have a look at the third bullet point under Notes, "made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline.". Thore Husfeldt (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question.

Hi. As I understand the guideline, it is not clear that that applies to this case at the moment, are there "a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question"? The situation may change in a few years time but at the moment this doesn't seem to be the case (blog posts are not academic publications). And please don't remove the tag as long as the discussion is on going. I am reverting your revert. 74.198.9.223 (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David Eppstein and Thore Husfeldt, the guideline states clearly that "a substantial number of references to academic publications" is "necessary". Let me emphasize "substantial number" and "academic publications" and "necessary". I don't understand why you keep removing the tag, put it back please. 74.198.9.222 (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because it is not in question that the result is significant. If the blogs by bluelinked experts Richard Lipton [2], Scott Aaronson [3], Lance Fortnow [4], Luca Trevisan [5], and Oded Goldreich [6] all saying so don't convince you, the best paper award at CCC might. And because cluttering up BLPs with tags that do not indicate a specific improvement to be made to the article is both disrespectful to the subject and makes the encyclopedia itself look bad. If you're so insistant that we shouldn't have an article on Williams, get yourself an account, wait the few days necessary to get article-creation rights, and start an AfD, don't just make things ugly because of your dislike for them. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not suggesting we shouldn't have an article on Williams. Based on the links you have provided it is almost certain that in a year or two the notability requirement will be satisfied. But this is not the case at the moment according to the guideline Thore Husfeldt has linked to. The notability tag reminds the readers that the article needs to be improved. But I am not going on to insist on putting the tag back. 74.198.9.211 (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate trivia[edit]

While it is arguable whether Ryan Williams meets the notability bar (I see no reason not to err on the side of inclusion), it is just absurd to consider someone's membership on a program committee as biographically noteworthy. Even the best student paper awards are probably likewise inappropriate material.

When someone is notable for their position and some specific scientific contribution, it is usual to just have a paragraph of biography and a paragraph describing the cotnribution. This would be appropriate here. Erniecohen (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gödel Prize[edit]

Well, now that Williams has won the 2024 Gödel Prize I suppose we can put these ancient notability discussions to rest. 207.180.169.36 (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ryan_Williams_(computer_scientist)&oldid=1223685609"