Deletion of Reid W. Barton

Comment: he has been specially noted for his achievements by the Science journal with an article starting 'Even in the rarefied world of mathematics competitions, Reid Barton is one of a kind' so I think he probably satisfies notability under 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: Even if it seems clear that this article does not meet , the consensus that has been developed for academics, it is not clear that  is an appropriate guideline to be used here. These additional criteria (, , and so on) are just summaries of usual arguments that arise in several instances, not exhaustive rules. As the article does not assert the notability of the person as an academic but as an (uniquely?) exceptionally successful participant in various contests, saying "does not meet " does not seem relevant here (to me). It is better to think about notability from scratch
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:ATHLETE||WP:PROF)

Comment: Fails , as amply demonstrated above. Most of the content consists of laudatory trivia and is neither notable nor verifiable via secondary sources. Regardless of one's opinion of the difficulty of winning IMO, Putnam, etc they are not independently notable. Also, since |Wikipedia is not a directory, arguments about "completeness of coverage" and "red links in IMO articles" seem ill-advised (such red links can be created &mdash; and sometimes they are &mdash; each time a book or paper is cited; the best solution is to de-link
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: WP:BLP1E, fails  (the listed papers have 3 and 8 citations, respectively), poorly sourced
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)