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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Scholze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The subject fails WP:PROF. His only claim to fame is three gold medals in the International Mathematical Olympiad. IMO wins have never been considered sufficient evidence of notability in themselves. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:49, 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]

• Comment. As the article creator recently noted on Talk:Peter Scholze, the subject is the 2011 Clay Research Fellow. This seems to be more significant, but I am not certain if brings the article to passing WP:PROF. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with the Clay Research Award. See [1].--RDBury (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Close (essentially keep, but without any prejudice toward relisting): the article is only 4 days old, and deserves a chance to make it case better. Especially in light of the recent information that has come to light I strongly oppose deleting at this time. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't get a lot of Google Scholar hits for the subject (with very few citations each), although I don't want to claim great accuracy in my GS search, since the name "Scholze" is very common. In light of the difficulty in sifting through the results, I refined the search to the past six years (and given that the subject's area is the Langland's program and Shimura varieties, I searched for related terms). A typical result was this search [2]. I was only able to turn up three papers, only one of which seems to have any citations. MathSciNet doesn't list any publications of the subject (he does have an MR number though: 890936). It seems to me that, although the Clay Institute seems to feel that the subject shows promise as a potential young researcher, he does not yet have enough of a research record to meet the requirements set forth at WP:PROF. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, only a PhD student, not even close to passing WP:PROF, no published papers, only three preprints and only a few citations . Student level awards and fellowships are explicitly excluded in WP:PROF from indicating academic notability. The Clay fellowships are meant to support finishing graduate students, based on the promise of future accomplishments, not on being notable already. Nsk92 (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. That means I can't create biographies for my IOI winning friends... Tijfo098 (talk) 02:19, 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]
• Delete. I added a source but I don't think it's enough for WP:GNG (the only relevant criterion since WP:PROF seems far out of reach), and I couldn't find much more. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I guess I think that the Clay Research Fellowship is a significant award by a notable foundation. Also, as someone in the subject, I can say that his work is quite well-regarded (though still in the publishing process, which is usually a couple years behind the times) and that he is presumably graduating some time soon. If anything, it is a bit soon to confirm under wikipedia regulations that the article should exist because his results are so recent that searching for citations is a bit premature. Also, note that he has been on the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Mathematics since April 2008 [3]. RobHar (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are actually making a "delete" argument: the fact that his results are too new to have been cited (or even published) is exactly what makes him non-notable under Wikipedia notability standards and the creation of a WP article about him rather premature. When there is significant published coverage of his work, then there will be something to talk about. As it is, he is a PhD student with no publications and no citability of his work - the very opposite of what WP:ACADEMIC requires. Regarding Clay fellowship: it is a fellowship for beginning scientists, showing great promise but who have not yet become notable academics. The fellowship's official description states[4]: "The primary selection criteria for the Fellowship are the exceptional quality of the candidate's research and the candidate's promise to become a mathematical leader. Most recent appointees were finishing graduate students at the time of their selection, though other mathematicians under age thirty occasionally have been appointed." By contrast, academic notability as defined in WP:PROF requires evidence that someone has already made significant impact in a his/her academic field and has become a leader there. Nsk92 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realize that my "If anything" clause is a delete argument. My keep argument is stated in the first sentence of my comment. WP:PROF does not require someone to have already made significant impact (as far as I understand it), it requires any one of 9 criteria, of which I am saying I believe the Clay Research Fellowship satisfies number 2. Also, being that the Clay Research Fellowship is one person chosen in the entire world, every fellow has indeed made significant contributions already (which may not be verifiable via citations in papers, but can be verified by the reception of the Fellowship). This is just my argument, so I could be wrong. RobHar (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I guess I also think it's a bit silly to delete a well-sourced article of someone who is very likely to be manifestly deserving of his own article sometime soon. This may not be in a guideline, but it's how I feel. RobHar (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak Delete Weak, because the Clay, due to its exclusivity, blurs the line between early career fellowships like the Sloan and other, more general prizes. But it is a prize given very very early. Ray^Talk 22:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - Too early. If he's going to be notable, he'll do something more and we'll want to wriate an article on him then. For now, he's not notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:13, 5 May 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.