Deletion of Itay Neeman

Comment: as others have said.  is what matters here, not  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:GNG||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: The nomination is extremely faulty because it is based around the wrong notability criterion; this article should be evaluated in terms of , which does not consider SIGCOV, and not in terms of , which does. Pure mathematics is an area that, despite being journal-focused rather than book focused, doesn't work well with #C1-based evaluation based on citation counts, because the citation counts are small and don't really concentrate on the works the mathematicians think are most important — see for instance https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202101/rnoti-p114.pdf and https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.05389 for some bibliometric analysis in this area. Neeman does have one paper with over 100 citations, but it appears that this paper obtained its high citations by shading over into computer science (a much higher citation field) rather than by being any way central or important to Neeman's main research, so it would be wrong to base notability on it and even more wrong to judge his other papers by their lower citations than it. His book has three signed and published reviews, but that does not really count for much because two are in MR and zbl, for which reviews of pure math publications are expected and routine. I think the Hausdorff Medal is more determinative in this case, enough for #C2, and that's the basis for my weak keep opinion. His full professor rank at UCLA, while not by itself sufficient for any  criterion, also suggests that his research is well respected within mathematics
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG||WP:PROF)