User talk:RJamenadan/sandbox
Notability
[edit]Hi you requested help in adding the sources that prove notability in this message on my talk page which I am moving here for ease of reference.
- RJamenadan (talk · contribs)
Hi Domdeparis! Thank you for reviewing my article on Atef Eltoukhy. I just need a detailed and simple explanation of why you rejected my article.
You said that, "the vast majority of the sources are simple listings of the subject publications or patent applications. these are not sufficent to show notability. WP:GNG requires the sources to be in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. these are not"
You also said, "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time."
What do you mean by "significant coverage", you mean longer more detailed articles? What if they are papers published or things invented by the subject?
What does that mean? Do you mean that each paper published or patent invented has to have an in depth explanation of what they are about?
the first part is a message that I wrote and the second is an automatic message because the problem I identified was notability issues. As stated in the WP:GNG guideline there has to be in-depth independent secondary coverage in reliable sources. First of all it is not clear what you are giving a this person is notable for, the papers that he wrote and the patents are in the area of applied physics but the lede says nothing about this and just states that he is CEO of a family business. If you are suggesting that because he has authored patents and papers this makes him automatically notable I'm afraid this isn't the case. If you read the notability criteria in WP:ACADEMIC and especially the "in a nutshell" section at the top you will read
Subjects of biographical articles on Wikipedia are required to be notable; that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice, as evidenced by being the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. Having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work.
The same goes for deposing patents if the patents are not widely used and there is no coverage of this use then this is not proof of notability. if you are suggesting that he is notable as a scientist/inventor then you need to prove the impact of his work as a scientist/inventor, via reliable secondary sources that talk about his role as a scientist/inventor. I hope this helps. Domdeparis (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)