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 keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Gallivan[edit]

Doesn't seem notable enough for her own article. Check the google results: [1] This person seemed to have her 15 minutes of fame for making a amateurish conclusion. We don't have articles for all record holders, so I don't see a need for an article for this one. Bulldog123 03:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Hardly an amateurish conclusion. References are good, and she derived the solution to a classic problem and showed that it works in the real world. This isn't a record for catching a grape in your mouth thrown from the roof of a building - it's a classic math problem. The fact that she solved it at such a young age adds points. MarkinBoston 04:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion might be notable, but the person isn't, and their involvement in it seems to be nothing more than amateurish. I can find nothing but periphery mentions of this person, and there's way more material written about certain convicted criminals, who don't merit an article. So, as a biography of a notable person, it should be deleted, but as a significant event (perhaps in a math article) it should be kept. Bulldog123 05:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mathematics of paper folding seems to be important in mathematics Corpx 05:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's precisely where this should be mentioned. Bulldog123 08:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but that's not a reason why the person isn't notable enough for a BIO article. Dbromage [Talk] 00:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you might as well snowball it. I was hoping somebody would notice that this person's notability as an individual is borderline non-existent, but it's all being overshadowed by the mathematical consequences. Bulldog123 07:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MarkinBoston Corpx 05:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doing a practical experiment which proves an established nostrum wrong isn't an "amateurish conclusion", it's the very beating heart of science. Nick mallory 06:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this person having any credentials, or establishment of notability, anywhere. Therefore, she would be considered an amateur. A grown-up making this conclusion would get nothing more than perhaps a few mentions in science journals/magazines (as this person did) but because it's an adolescent we're supposed to think of it as more notable? That's just plain silly. Bulldog123 08:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Absolutely wrong. Science is a method, it's the testing of a hypothesis by subjecting it to the evidence. Many major scientific breakthroughs were made by 'amateur' scientists. Science is something anyone can do because it's a way of thinking, rather than an abstract qualification. The fact that she got mentions in science journals and magazines is what makes her notable by wikipedia rules. Should she be disqualified because she was young? That is silly. Nick mallory 15:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is extablished by non-trivial coverage by reliable sources (cited below). Dbromage [Talk] 00:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like the person is notable as is the experiment. RandomCritic 06:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only did she do the experiment, she came up with the formula. I can only salute. --Dhartung | Talk 16:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:V, WP:N, WP:BIO. Experimented and came up with the formula, definitely not an amateur. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep and improve. Easily passes WP:N, WP:V and WP:BIO but could do with more sources (easily found[2]). Dbromage [Talk] 00:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am related to Britney so am prejudiced, but I know more of the inside story too. Britney or no one she knew ever contributed to her page, which is now low in detail. Before her work was about to be released she talked to three math PhDs about the work, and they all thought it was significant. Her book has a letter of support and accuracy from the head of the math department of Harvey Mudd and includes a comment from the from the head of a skeptic society and now monthly article writer for the Scientific American. Her inclusion in the TV series Numb3rs was due to a mathematician adviser at Cal Tech for the program. The only two schools that have said they have confirmed her work are Cal Tech and Princeton. Even knowing her answer, it is not easy for professionals to solve the problem and the usually do not understand how she dynamically solved the wadding problem to allow the paper to be folded as used to be shown. None of the PhDs suggested any changes in her book. Most people comment on its comprehensive depth. One of her most interesting replies from a person who ordered her book was "My God!". Among other things she had to define mathematically what a fold was, so in essence she not solved the problem but also defined it. Half of her booklets (that she donates the small profits to a historical society) go outside the United States and I would say 35% go to colleges. Of the over 12,000 Goggle hits on her name, many are teacher quoting her outstanding tenacity in tackling problems, as a good example. They often list the Wikipedia site as a reference. Many of the sites show Britney actively encourages others to set higher standards and enter the sciences. She finds more pleasure and science and encouraging young people than fame. The fame aspects crept up following when MathWorld http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Folding.html mentioned that they found she had entered her work into the Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. Britney was an invited keynote speaker for the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Regional Conference in Chicago, Illinois on September 22, 2006. She has helped prepare high school students for math contests, with out ever telling the students of her folding work. She and her work has been mentioned in almost every major language. Prof Gall —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfGall (talk • contribs) 06:05, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Keep multiple independent sources, notable, encyclopedic. Gandalf61 09:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as noted earlier, it passes WP:N, WP:V and WP:BIO. Earthsound 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: History is made up with these small pieces. I will translate it into Spanish taking the chance of the Translation of the week Mathematics of paper folding. --OceanO 18:50, 30 August 2007 (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.