User talk:MarcGarver/Archive 55

Dear @MarcGarver

Thank you for taking the time to review the submission and provide your feedback. I appreciate your guidance and would like to address the notability concerns you raised. It seems that all criteria for the notability of person is met within the draft.

The Notability (people) Basic Criteria provides:

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

The draft cites significant media coverage in outlets such as NBC News, ABC News, CNN, Discovery News, CNET, HuffPost, and Animation Word Network, among others. These sources are independent and reliable, and the coverage discusses the subject's work in depth, particularly his research contributions to rainbow simulation and hair rendering. If needed, additional citations can be added to further substantiate the subject’s notability.

Regarding the use of primary sources, the policy provides:

"Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia"

The primary references in the draft, such as patents published by the US Patent Office and research published at ACM SIGGRAPH , are reputable and relevant. While primary sources alone cannot establish notability, they are used here to complement secondary sources and verify the subject’s contributions to computer graphics research and technology. For example, the cited ACM SIGGRAPH publications are widely recognized in the computer science field, and their citation counts can be added to demonstrate the significance of the research.

Lastly, the policy for scientists and academics provides:

"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."

The draft demonstrates the subject's influence through widely adopted research in hair rendering (used in the Disney film Tangled), cloth rendering, and rainbow simulation, as well as his patents. If the guideline requires additional emphasis on the subject's academic influence, it can be expanded to include more information about the subject's research impact and provide citation metrics or references to independent commentary on his work.

Could you kindly clarify if there are specific aspects of the notability guidelines that the current draft does not satisfy? Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

136.52.62.43 (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree, but you are welcome to resubmit the draft and see what another reviewer thinks. The issue of notability or lack of it arises from the totality of the content. The reason I think it doesn't reach the threshold is that each item is individually not particularly notable and collectively do not make the individual notable. To take some examples: there are quite literally millions of patents registered, I even have a couple with my name on them. That means virtually nothing. Most companies with any kind of research capability register hundreds of patents a year. The people who work on them are not notable. Having an article published also on its own doesn't mean very much. Rather, there usually needs to be a body of research that establishes the individual is a notable researcher in that field - cited by other people. Publishing a paper doesn't establish notability. The fact that something someone researched is also widely adopted also doesn't prove notability. There have been thousands of researchers in most fields, and most of them are not significant. The individual needs to have been a leading researcher, widely cited, to be notable. What I read here is someone who has a PhD, who has held jobs at big companies, written a couple of papers and presented at a conference or two. That doesn't to my mind reach the notability threshold for an academic. But, I am not the decision maker here. If you disagree, then try submitting again for a second opinion. MarcGarver (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification and input regarding the citations. According to his Google Scholar profile, Google Scholar profile, the subject's work has been cited over 700 times. Would including this citation count be sufficient to address the concerns about notability? 136.52.62.43 (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi! You reviewed my draft. I made edits there and change the style. Nobody commented on that. I wanted to check with you. I added about 20 sources that clearly show notability, and edited the style, also asked chat got to help make text neutral. Moondust534 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you planning to promote an article to good article status by any chance? I was looking over the Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls page, and I recall from the October elections you were pretty close. I feel as though if you can work to promote a piece of content (I personally went the featured lists route instead) I think you might have a pretty good shot if you ran again. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a good idea, I will give it some thought thanks MarcGarver (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:ONE Championship on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Could you please review the article Draft:Dr. Sudhir Mehta? I'm particularly interested in feedback on the neutrality of the article and whether the sources are sufficient to establish notability. Any other suggestions are welcome. Thanks! MH-wiki2025 (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections | Renewal RFC phase

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)