Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Smith (The Simplest Universal Computer Proof contest winner)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Wolfram's 2-state 3-symbol Turing_machine. merging from one incredibly long titled article to another article witha slightly less long title Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Smith (The Simplest Universal Computer Proof contest winner)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of media coverage of this individual. Sources are mainly not independent of the prize he won. Itsallacademic (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ Weak Keep. Deletion rationale no longer true due to addition of inline citations. It is also explicitly stated in WP:BLP1E that:
If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources.
Since this is a significant and widely covered event the biography falls within this exemption.Dr.K. ^praxis_logos 22:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: with Wolfram's 2-state 3-symbol Turing_machine. The BLP section you quote mentions John Hinckley, Jr.. ... ! I don't think you can compare a Presidential assassination attempt with someone who proved an obscure mathematical model which even Mr. Wolfram himself says doesn't (yet) have any practical application. GreyWyvern (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being covered by Nature, Scientific American, New Scientist et al. does not look like an obscure event to me. And Mathematics concepts do not need to have a practical application for them to be notable. This is not Engineering. Dr.K. ^praxis_logos 23:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if your name is Andrew Wiles and solved a famous conundrum that had been plaguing mathematicians since 1637... My apologies to Mr. Smith if he is reading this, but only two of the listed references go into much more detail than "Student solves problem and wins $25,000". And of those two, the first spends about 90% of the article building up Wolfram's theory and mentions Alex in the last few sentences, while the second cautions that the proof is still not accepted by a number of qualified experts besides Wolfram and may not even be valid. This is just not enough notability IMHO to deserve a biographical WP article. GreyWyvern (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also does not meet the notability criteria of WP:ACADEMIC as I am fairly certain a $25,000 award from one professor for proving his theorem does not count as a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. GreyWyvern (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit you raise some good points. I'll change my vote to weak keep due to the fact that while your analysis covers the higher end of notability maybe this article is near the bottom end of the scale. However it could well be that I am wrong and the article falls off the scale altogether. Dr.K. ^praxis_logos 03:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This certainly seems an interesting and significant result. If it's notable for Nature, New Scientist, and Scientific American, that more than establishes notability. The result appears to be technical and obscure, but its importance should be evident to most computer scientists. Notability does not require solving Fermat's Last Theorem! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs) 19:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the sources added assert notability of subject (though a less cumbersome title could perhaps be introduced) Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 21:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wolfram's 2-state 3-symbol Turing machine. BLP1E is in full effect here. Abductive (reasoning) 10:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as explained several times above: BLP1E. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.