This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Comment: Thank you for the comments. I based the draft from the guidelines for academics at this link Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. I believed he would qualify with 1, 4, and 7. The criteria says that "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." While references don't talk about him like people such as actors or musicians, he is discussed in textbooks and other reliable sources. He is widely cited by his peers as you can see from Research Gate and Google Scholar. Some of the references in the article talk specifically about him and his work. Please reconsider. Cornslawth (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This subject appears to be notable, and was excellently written. However, there are no sources that are strictly *about* the subject. The sources provided do support the work that Mathys has accomplished. However, none of the sources write about Mathys himself. So unfortunately, I cannot accept this draft right now. Based on his prestige and the extent of his research though, I do believe that the article will be passed on its second attempt (given that these concerns are addressed). Utopes (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I disagree with the guidelines for academics, this would likely qualify. I think its a guideline that needs changed, but it has been discussed and hammered so many times that I don't think we will see changes anytime soon. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for the comments. I based the draft from the guidelines for academics at this link Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. I believed he would qualify with 1, 4, and 7. The criteria says that "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." While references don't talk about him like people such as actors or musicians, he is discussed in textbooks and other reliable sources. He is widely cited by his peers as you can see from Research Gate and Google Scholar. Some of the references in the article talk specifically about him and his work. Please reconsider. Cornslawth (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)