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)

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)

* 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The indication of notability *is* the reports of established experts in the field such as Pach, Kalai, Weinberger, or Terence Tao saying that these results are breakthoughs. It's absurd to state that BLP rules forbid mentioning such reports. As for MR: you didn't read what I wrote above, did you? It is true that pretty much every paper gets listed in MR. It is far from true that every paper gets such an extensive report as some of the ones on Guth's papers. In any case, there are two different aspects of reliable sourcing that you're conflating with each other here: is the subject significant, and is there enough depth of coverage about the subject to write an article? The MR reviews aren't really usable as evidence of significance, but they do provide depth of coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Guth is a remarkable mathematician by any standard. Pursuing a notability challenge is simply wasting the WPM members' time. Tkuvho (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's true that by the usual standards used at academic deletion debates (i.e. WP:PROF) it's hard to demonstrate notability: he's an assistant professor, his citation counts are not yet high, etc. And non-mathematicians aren't going to know the meaning of an ICM invitation. So it's reasonable for someone not well versed in mathematics to look at this and ask why we have an article about him. But I think the expert testimonials on his diverse breakthroughs should be enough to settle the questions —David Eppstein (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You say "It's absurd to state that BLP rules forbid mentioning such reports." Can you go to WP:SPS and read where it says "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." Please can you follow this explicit WP policy and replace those references to self-published blogs with something else. Perchloric (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In the years since this 2011 discussion, many more RS have discussed Larry Guth while some of the sources currently cited have disappeared. I will be doing some rewriting to improve the article, which I found today after Twitter notified me he won a big math prize. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Larry Guth. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717191917/http://www.icm2010.org.in/scientific-program/invited-speakers to http://www.icm2010.org.in/scientific-program/invited-speakers

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) 10:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)