Talk:Benjamin Schlein

Notability

For @Tensorproduct, and others. This article does not convince that it passes the WP:NPROF notability tests. In HEP h-factors are high, see for instance at the same university Florencia Canelli. An h-factor of 44 with no major awards, and only one paper cited as being notable is not enough. Please revise, and I strongly suggest submitting to WP:AfC rather than directly creating an article whose notability has been questioned. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 By the way Maryam Mirzakhani who got the Fields medal - the most prestigious award in mathematics - has an h-index of 20 ([see]). The h-factor is not a good judgement on mathematicians and mathematics paper tend to have a lower citation rate than experimental physics, so bad comparison. And not sure what you say that "only one paper of Schlein is notable", because that is not true, see for instance Benjamin Schlein on Google Scholar - plenty of papers with over 100 citations and that is a lot in mathematics. --Tensorproduct (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Schlein has received an ERC Advanced Grant (criteria here). Already that alone establishes his notability IMO. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jähmefyysikko Thanks for confirming. I don't know that well about his awards, I am only interested in the results. This decision is absurd. Schlein released a paper with Terence Tao where they proved universality for Wigner matrices, the central object in random matrix theory.--Tensorproduct (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jähmefyysikko Also, he is a chief-editor of the main journal of functional analysis - the Journal of Functional Analysis. Another chief-editor is for instance Cédric Villani. No person would be in that position, that didn't achieve anything.--Tensorproduct (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It’s unfortunate that WP does not recognize expert opinions, but that’s just the way it works. Fortunately, the only hoop you have jump through here is to find sources which prove that he satisfies some criteria at WP:NPROF. Being associated with Tao is not a good argument for this, see WP:NOTINHERITED. On the other hand, being an editor-of-chief of a major journal makes him pass the notability criterion #8 which is in principle already enough. In my opinion, the ERC grant is an indication that he also passes criterion #1. It would be ideal to actually find some secondary source that discusses what his major contributions are. That would make the article more useful for the reader, but such texts are often hard to find, and it is not strictly necessary. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @David Eppstein, I started an article on Benjamin Schlein, a professor in mathematical physics at university of Zurich, who proved quite a big result in random matrix theory together with Terence Tao (See "Laszlo Erdos, Jose Ramirez and Benjamin Schlein and Terence Tao and Van Vu and Horng-Tzer Yau - Bulk universality for Wigner hermitian matrices with subexponential decay") and who is an editor-in-chief of the renowned Journal of Functional Analysis. Now User @Ldm1954 claims he is not important enough for an encylopedia because of the h-index. This is silly since there are many great mathematicians that even have fields medal but low h-indexes like Cédric Villani and Maryam Mirzakhani. What is your opinion?--Tensorproduct (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

A high h-index can be evidence for notability but a low h-index is not really evidence of anything for or against. In this case the issue is whether you count his publications as pure mathematics (a low citation field, for which his citation counts look quite strong) or as mathematical physics (a high citation field, for which his citation counts don't provide much evidence of anything). To me his publications look like a mix of both areas, which in general have very different citation patterns. For this reason I would prefer to look at other notability criteria. EIC JFA looks like a pass of WP:PROF#C8. Also the Sofia Kovalevskaya Award is significant, maybe enough for WP:PROF#C2. (The best-diploma prize on the other hand does not count for much, and I don't know the significance of the IUPAP award but without a separate article for that award it is harder to make the case.) The procedure for moving an article to draftspace (WP:DRAFTIFY) states that it can only be done (without further discussion) once; you can dispute it merely by moving the article back to article space, and Ldm1954 will be violating procedure if they try to move it back a second time. That said, if you do move it back to article space, clean up the references first, and be prepared for Ldm1954 to escalate the dispute by initiating a deletion discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein Thank you very much for this detailed analysis! Yes the argument that he got the Sofia Kovalevskaya Award seems to me a bullet proof argument. But shouldn't it be also for example that he is a editor-in-chief of the renowned Journal of Functional Analysis (founded by Paul Malliavin and Irving Segal)? Also the co-operation with Terence Tao in a paper and the very fundamental result of universality for Wigner matrices - which is a big result in random matrix theory.--Tensorproduct (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned being editor-in-chief in my reply. As for having "a big result in random matrix theory": to make such a claim you need published sources independent of the people who proved this result. Nothing like that kind of source exists in the current draft. Merely collaborating with big names is not itself cause for notability, and in some sense can actually weaken the case for notability (when based on the results of the collaboration), because people attribute the big results to the big names and not to the others who worked together on it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 Please read the comments of Mr. Eppstein.--Tensorproduct (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The way to contest a draftify is to move it back to article space yourself, not to change the mind of the person who draftified it. I mean, that might happen, I suppose, but they're within their rights to do nothing more at this point. Again, do pay attention to the complaints about reference formatting, before making any such move. Badly formatted or unreferenced material can be a valid reason for draftification even when the topic of the article is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein Universality is basically the central topic in random matrix theory (it started with Wigner's semicircle law, this is an example of a universality theorem). And Schlein and co. showed it for the most basic structure: Wigner matrices. The world's most famous living mathematician Terence Tao would not have participated if the result for Wigner matrices was not big. Is it a topic that is considered "big" by the general science community? Obviously not, random matrix theory is already a advanced theory in probability and statistical mechanics. Has the result a groundbreaking impact in mathematics? No, but it is a fundamental noticeable proof, since Wigner matrices are a central structure in random matrix theory. Again, I don't understand, why so many irrelevant people have a Wikipedia article (which is apparently fine), but an actual scientist and co-director of the mathematics department from the university of Zürich is considered irrelevant.--~~ Tensorproduct (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You are trying to do the wrong thing. Persuading me that this is an important topic, and that Schlein's contributions to it are important, as you are trying to do, is not going to help. What you need to do is find published sources by people unrelated to Schlein's publication that state that Schlein's contribution to the publication was an important one. Wikipedia works on the basis of what can be found in published sources, not on personal knowledge. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein The topic is not that important for me, but I will search for it. My main point was, that the same rules do not apply for many other biography articles. It's the not first time I had this discussion. I saw recently article getting published about irrelevant politicans having absolutely done nothing. Such things make it just frustrating for us mathematicians to work here. I (and you also) don't get paid for that.--Tensorproduct (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Go read WP:WAX. Complaining that you don't understand why certain politicians have articles is not helpful in trying to understand why your draft article on a mathematician is not yet agreed to demonstrate the notability you think he has. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein Ok, I understand your arguments. Can you please also explain, why my article Deficiency (statistics) is again in Limbo since months and does not get published, many of my articles have been stucked in the past (until I have noticed an administrator...)? Obviously Lucien Le Cam was one of the top statisticians.--Tensorproduct (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any history of the deficiency article suggesting that it was stuck in limbo. It appears that you created it as an article one month ago and that it has continued to stay in article space since you did that. I do not see any drafts in your contribution history that might have been earlier stuck versions of the same article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein No, I didn't meant that, what I meant was, that it was the same case with other articles I wrote in the past. Very few people review math articles. But thank you for responding to me and clarifing some things, I very appreciate that. --Tensorproduct (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The two best cases for notability that I see here are two borderline cases: former co-editor-in-chief of Journal of Functional Analysis (WP:NPROF#C8) and invited speaker at the 2018 ICM (WP:NPROF#C2, just added to the draft).

By the way, I don't think the grants should be included in the article at all. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The notability tag and discussion are pretty absurd. Notable chair at University of Bonn, invited speaker at ICM 2018, ERC Advanced Grant. This should have never been moved to draft, the article would definitely have passed AFD. —Kusma (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I have returned the article to mainspace. —Kusma (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The aggressive comments and actions by @Kusma have to be challenged, please justify them since

• There are five Hausdorff Chairs in what he argues is notable. These are institute chairs, not what is described in #C5
• I count 30 named/plenary lectures at ICM 2018, he is not one of them. I expect there were about 90 invited speakers. That definitely does not qualify for #C2.
• The ERC grant remains something that is not mentioned on the page. While it indicates some peer recognition, getting funds is WP:MILL in academia, and is not one of the criteria in WP:NPROF. I am not alone in questioning this.

As others here have said this is marginal, and I am surprised that @Kusma felt it was appropriate to call the opinions of many others absurd. The original article that was moved to draft was definitely not ready for mainspace. Articles that need major improvement but have a chance are appropriate for tagging and draftification; AfD is when they are probably terminal. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

ERC Advanced grants are the top individual research grants in European research funding. ICM has about 120 speakers every four years. The Hausdorff chairs are among the most prestigious mathematics posts in Germany, comparable to the directorships of the two Max Planck Institutes. If you think that is not enough, you can nominate the article for AfD. This is an article about a notable person, even if this may not have been clear from the start. —Kusma (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Kusma is 100% right regarding the notability.--Tensorproduct (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Please improve rather than debate

Dear Tensorproduct,

It is important to read the message that came when the article was moved to draft:

Thanks for your contributions to Benjamin Schlein. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and there are format issues. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back.

During new page review there are several options a reviewer has, the harshest of which involve nominating for deletion, more constructive is moving to draft so it can be improved or noting things to improve. I moved to a draft so you can improve it, and I also went the extra step of marking many things that need attention for you. Unfortunately I noticed that you have not acted on my suggestions

Tensorproduct, from your talk page this is not the first time someone has moved one of you pages to a draft so you can improve it. As David Eppstein states, you cannot just claim that a result is big, it has to be demonstrated by reliable secondary sources. Being associated with big names is also not something that proves notability, this is an established criteria, please see WP:NINI.

The original statement I made was, to quote, This article does not convince that it passes the WP:NPROF notability tests. Since no edits have been made this remains the case and nothing discussed on the page alters the lack of convincing evidence.

Please edit the page to prove notability, the same way you would prove results in a journal publication.

N.B., for Jähmefyysikko, I strongly disagree about the ERC starter grant. Those are similar to CAREER and DOE/DOD young investigator grants in the US. They are an important first step, but there are hundreds each year in the different areas (and similar ones such as Sloan). The Sofia Kovalevskaya Award is more selective, but it is also really a grant, i.e. research funds, rather than a merit award for achievements. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

N.N.B. I have seen quite a few editors inspect biographies (WP:BLP) and delete anything which does not have an independent source to verify it, in one case even a birth date. I don't do that, but the current draft is an obvious target. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not a starter grant, but ERC Advanced Grant, which is supposed to be much more selective. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Point taken. However, the grant is not in the page, part and parcel of the lack of proof. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I started working on the sourcing of this article, but then noticed that he is actually not one of the three editors-in-chief of Journal of Functional Analysis, only a member of the editorial board. Without that merit this seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Due diligence, he was one of four in 2022, see wayback. I don't really agree with the consensus in WT:NPROF#Clarify C8 to do nothing about editors. We could post this as an example of where everything relies upon the editorship, whereas most people have enough others things that justify notability. Thoughts, if you prefer I can post... Ldm1954 (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this! The fact that was an editor-in-chief for a quite limited time (perhaps 2 years?) IMO somewhat diminishes the case for notability. I added some sources for the grants mostly to benefit the discussion... feel free to post on WT:NPROF. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Posted Ldm1954 (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jähmefyysikko So I guess, irrelevant people can become editors of Journal of Functional Analysis. Even if it was for 2 years. Or maybe not?--Tensorproduct (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jähmefyysikko The article got now accepted, because Schlein is an important mathematician and as Kusma said, it's absurd since he had a Hausdorff chair at the Hausdorff Center for Mathematics in Bonn. One of the highest positions in Germany for mathematics.--Tensorproduct (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it got accepted because of a consensus of editors in the discussion that Schlein meets the relevant notability criterion. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say the exact reason why got it accepted. However if you refuse an article for a Hausdorff chair member, that would be not understandble. For me it was clear from the beginning. I added him because I know his work in Random Matrix Theory with Terence Tao.

--Tensorproduct (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter to anyone other than you what was clear to you from the beginning; what matters to every other person is what the relevant guidelines are and how they apply in this instance. A brief browse through your recent interactions suggests that you would have an easier time communicating and collaborating with other editors if you were more attentive to distinctions of this kind. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Then I guess it does not matter whether I contribute more to mathematics on Wikipedia or not. Someone else can write the articles and replace me.--Tensorproduct (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)