Talk:Friedrich Eisenbrand

Notability

I am unconvinced of this person's notability. The more I look into the Otto Hahn Medal and the Heinz Maier-Leibnitz-Preis, the less I am convinced that receiving them indicates notability of their recipients. They are both awarded to fairly large fields (6 to 10 for the Heinz Maier-Leibnitz Prize, 30 for the Otto Hahn Medal) of young academics who display potential. While they are thus similar to the MacArthur Fellowship (which is granted nominally on potential), they seem more closely related to prestigious post-doc fellowships (which do not even partially fulfill any of the wikipedia:notability (academics) requirements). The Alexander von Humboldt professorship, on the other hand, might imply notability, though I am unsure whether it is an academic award, a named professorship, or an economic incentive for researchers to relocate to Germany. Rockphed (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I am an inclusionist, which means a speaker at the ICM and three awards is more notable than a random midfielder in FC Swansea. See the ICM link above saying:

Being invited to talk at the ICM has been called "the equivalent [...] of an induction to a hall of fame."

I am convinced. If you are not, maybe other editors can join and resolve the issue. Mhym (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

But can you verify that he was specifically invited to speak? Can you verify that being invited to speak at the ICM is considered highly prestigious by the community at large, or is it just that one nature piece on Shinichi Mochizuki? Can you actually defend that any of the three awards he received (of which I can only verify receiving 2) are highly prestigious? I also think that there are far too many articles on sports figures, but that is orthogonal to establishing effective notability guidelines for academics. A notability guideline helps ensure that articles can actually have content beyond "it exists", while also helping to reduce self promotion. So, which part of the wikipedia:notability (academics) guideline are you trying to claim that Friedrich Eisenbrand fulfills? I think you are trying to claim he fulfills criterion 1, but the notes say that "For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1, significant academic awards and honors may include, for example: highly selective fellowships (other than postdoctoral fellowships); invited lectures at meetings of national or international scholarly societies". So he might hit it twice (once for being invited to speak at the ICM, once for receiving the Alexander von Humboldt professorship). Rockphed (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I will talk only about the ICM which is enough. See this quote: "The selection process for invited speakers to ICM is extremely rigorous. Nominations received worldwide are channeled to selection committees for individual sub-disciplines comprising of preeminent experts in the whole world. In each sub-discipline, only a handful of mathematicians are invited to give 45-minute presentations. To be an ICM invited speaker is to be recognised by one’s peers to be among the top experts in the sub-discipline in the whole world. It is a singular honour that is widely acclaimed by the mathematical community as a mark of excellence."[1] . In other words, being an invited ICM speaker is the highest international honor. The fact he is an invited speaker is here: [2] I don't see why I need to prove anything else. If you have any doubts, please invite other editors to voice an opinion. Mhym (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)