Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iurie Boreico

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 delete. The achievement of the subject is sufficient for mention in List of International Mathematical Olympiad participants but not for a standalone article per our inclusion criteria, which requires that independent and reliable sources indicate notability by writing in depth on a subject. SilkTork *^YES! 20:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iurie Boreico[edit]

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

The subject's only claim to fame is winning the IMO three times. There has been consensus in the past that this is not on its own considered to make the subject notable. The basic criterion for inclusion of a mathematician is WP:PROF, which the subject fails. For mathematics competitions, the criterion is usually WP:ATHLETE, which excludes student competitions. In specific cases, WP:GNG has been invoked, and in those cases there were generally other positive reasons for inclusion. For example, Reid Barton was written up in Science magazine, and in addition won the Putnam medal four times. Earlier discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reid W. Barton (which was kept, largely because of arguments that I made there) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darij Grinberg (which was deleted). Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Winning five medals at IMOs is at least equivalent to being named All-American in basketball or football, which has been enough notability in the past (see thousands of biographies of college and high school athletes, e.g. Michael Gilchrist, Andre Drummond). --bender235 (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From WP:ATHLETE: "High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Note that the first clause would exclude all school papers and school websites that cover their sports teams and other teams they compete against. The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability." That doesn't seem to be the case [1], although you're welcome to try to find something suitable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I don't care much about the notability guidelines here, at least not by chapter and verse. Being one of the all-time best participants in the IMO might not be mentioned as a notability criterion anywhere, but I consider that person notable nonetheless. As I do consider say athletes who broke youth or junior world records, or won some major competition (e.g. Darrel Brown, Yohan Blake, Jacko Gill). --bender235 (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or I start creating biographies for my IOI multi-winning friends. Most of them pass WP:GNG via coverage in their national press(es). Tijfo098 (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a reminder for those not in the know, "Medals are awarded to the highest ranked participants, such that slightly less than half of them receive a medal. Subsequently the cutoffs (minimum score required to receive a gold, silver or bronze medal) are chosen such that the ratio of medals awarded approximates 1:2:3." Gold winner doesn't mean the top dog (in IMO or IOI). Tijfo098 (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But winning three gold medals, with two perfect scores, means something. There's a reason Bureico is No. 4 in the IMO "Hall of Fame". --bender235 (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article for #1 & #2 there Christian Reiher and Reid Barton, (or guys further down below Ciprian Manolescu or László Lovász) but they are notable for other achievements as well. There is no consensus or guideline in Wikipedia that placement in that chart alone entitles one to a biography here. Wolfgang Burmeister (#3)? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the fact that two USA IMO gold winners have pages here, Gabriel Carroll and Reid Barton while their Chinese counterparts (who you can be sure have coverage in the Chinese press) do not, surely indicates systemic bias. This Moldavian guy (Boreico) has coverage on the official site of the Moldavian government, [2], and I'm pretty sure there's more of that in their press. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete need more than the Harvard Crimson coverage for GNG. Racepacket (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Unless your name is Perelman or Tao, mathematicians do not receive plenty of press coverage for their achievements. Try to find me press coverage on Artur Avila, or Ben J. Green, or plenty of other mathematicians whose biographies we keep because of their achievements, not their press coverage. --bender235 (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, except that we aren't evaluating the subject as a mathematician, but as a competitor in a student event. He firmly fails WP:PROF. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're a evaluating him as a competitor in a student event. As one of the all-time best competitors in that particular event. How in the world does that not meet notability criteria? If we were talking about an athlete with the fourth-strongest record at say the IAAF World Junior Championships in Athletics, we wouldn't even have this Afd. Why should Jacko Gill (youngest WJC gold medallist) be notable, but not Raul Chavez Sarmiento (second youngest bronze and silver medalist)? Why Dexter Lee (only two-time WJC gold medalist), but not Ciprian Manolescu (only three-time IMO gold medalist with perfect papers). Which is to say if Gill, Lee, Iizuka, Gordon, and James meet WP:ATHLETE, why wouldn't Reiher, Barton, Kane, and Boreico? --bender235 (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS seems to be relevant. In the past, there was consensus that even really good IMO records do not translate into notability. That is directly relevant to how previous consensus comes to bear on assessing the notability of this particular subject. That there are lower standards for other student competitions (lower than seem to be supported by our own guidelines) is regrettable, but there is very little to do about it. We obviously can't discuss here the individual merits of every high school athlete we happen to have an article on. But it's very likely that some of these should be deleted per our guideline as well. In this case, the bottom line is whether multiple independent secondary sources have substantial coverage of the subject. That just doesn't seem to be true. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you harp on about press coverage? To me, this is not the main criterion here. Question is, whether say the top 10 all-time IMO participants are as notable as the top 10 World Junior Athletics Championship participants, or All-Tournament selections at FIBA World U19 Championships, or All-USA high school football selections? In my opinion they are. And this is not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so stop throwing such instructions at regulars, or read WP:NOTPOLICY. --bender235 (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about high school athletics per se. I do know that prior consensus on student mathematics competitions is very much against you. The guidelines are also against you, and I know what our guideline says. It seems pretty cut-and-dry. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You brought up the WP:ATHLETE guideline for this in your nom, and per WP:ATHLETE some college/high school/junior/youth athletes are notable, particularly if they "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level", which the IMO clearly is. By the way, there's a difference between the IMO and your local spelling bee competition. Just because they're both "student competition" doesn't mean we should treat them equally, just like we distinguish the Alabama High School Track Meet from the IAAF World Junior Championships, althought technically, they're both "student competitions", too. --bender235 (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in WP:ATHLETE does it say that high school competitions of any kind confer notability. The "major international amateur" competitions are of the Olympic Games and world championship variety, not the "international high school spelling bee" variety. There is no real parallel. For context, you need to read past the nutshell. The circumstances for notability of a high school athlete are very clearly explained. These standards are not met in this case. The basic requirement is, and always has been, that the subject of the article must be the subject of substantial coverage in multiple independent sources. That is non-negotiable. Simply appearing in a list doesn't seem to be adequate. It certainly isn't enough to build an encyclopedia article on. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting tired of this. Could you finally please explain to me why the International Math Olympiad is supposed to be a "high school competition" (and therefore applying the HS athlete section of WP:ATHLETE), instead of a "major international amateur competition"? --bender235 (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference, of course, is that there are no high level "adult" competitions in mathematics. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know there aren't. But does that mean just because the IMO has an age limit it qualifies as "non-adult competition"? What about the Fields Medal? Is that a junior prize as well? Seriously, I can only repeat my point: exceptionally succesful IMO participants are notable (per whatever guideline you want). That doesn't include people who just participated or won a medal, but certainly people you won gold at the age of 14, or wrote multiple perfect papers. That is, in my mind, just as notable as someone breaking a youth or junior world record, or winning a gold medal at world championships in any sport. --bender235 (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptionally successful spelling bee participants are generally not considered to be notable either. Exceptional performance in student competitions is not prima facie evidence of notability. As I've already said, the guidelines bear out my point of view: sources are the thing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even grad students are almost never notable. More so for undergrads. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Emma Watson is an undergrad as well, but of course she meets notability guidelines because her notability draws from her acting career. Boreico isn't listed for the fact that he's a math Ph.D. student, but for the fact that he's one of the all-time best in IMO history. --bender235 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a specious and irrelevant comparison. Emma Watson isn't notable for her academic achievements. She's a Hollywood star, with press coverage all over the place. If you can find even a fraction of that kind of coverage for the subject of this article, you are welcome to present it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was merely to say that "undergrad = irrelevant" is a non-argument, because Boreico is not notable for his academic status, but for his IMO results. --bender235 (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable as an academic per WP:PROF, and too little coverage to pass under the general provisions of WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you evaluate the fact that he's No. 4 on the International Mathematical Olympiad all-time list? --bender235 (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF addresses this concern already: "Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1." Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: nom says "The subject's only claim to fame is winning the IMO three times. There has been consensus in the past that this is not on its own considered to make the subject notable." Where and when has this consensus been established? --bender235 (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See deletion discussions for Arthur Rubin, Darij Grinberg, Reid W. Barton. Of these, the ones that were kept were only kept because of additional exceptional circumstances under the WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rubin is notable beyond his IMO results, that leaves Barton and Grinberg. Barton is one of the most successful participants ever, Grinberg not. Barton's article is still there, Grinberg's is not. Where exactly does this contradict my point? --bender235 (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the arguments made at those AfD's to understand why some were kept and others not. The bottom line is that Barton was discussed in multiple independent sources (books, magazine articles), not (just) because he had an exceptional IMO record. Likewise, Rubin was reckoned to pass WP:PROF#C1 based on a highly cited paper. Being "one of the most successful participants" in either case was not considered a strong reason to keep. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At conferences, it often feels like one can't cross the room without bumping into several IMO/IPhO whatever medallists. I think our precedent on this one is essentially correct. Ray^Talk 01:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If five IMO medals were dime a dozen, this list would have been stuffed full of people, but it isn't. Are their hundreds of mathematicians with IMO medals? Yes. Are their hundreds of mathematicians with five medals, three of them gold, and two with perfect papers? No. So let's keep the exceptional participants. --bender235 (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a dime a dozen, but not so rare as to be exceptional in the academic world, is my point. Certainly not so exceptional as to merit automatic notability under WP:PROF, which we reserve for, say, professors holding distinguished chairs, with decades of important contributions to their fields. Since WP:PROF doesn't apply, we apply WP:GNG: has an independent source reported on the subject, at length? I see no such press coverage. Ray^Talk 22:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"not so rare as to be exceptional" Boreico is fourth on the all-time list. How much rarer does it get? If the notability guidelines don't recognized top-10 all-time achievements at the IMO as notable, then they are erroneous or at least incomplete and should rightfully be ignored. --bender235 (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rarity alone is not a measure of notability. As the silly old saw goes, we're all unique and special, and above average in our own way. These guys are just a bit smarter than the rest of us, is all. Notability requires, well, that people care, specifically, to the extent of citing them, or writing about them in published sources. Consensus seems to be running against you in this regard. Ray^Talk 22:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you and everyone else to discuss this more generally here. --bender235 (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2011 (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.