This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
(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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
(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)
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)
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.
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)
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)