User talk:WeirdNAnnoyed

I don’t think your description of the sources as “probably enough” fairly reflects the evidence: the breadth and depth of the independent coverage clearly establish notability under the applicable guidelines. And the sources I added were found as part of a brief search, which also indicated that substantial further coverage exists concerning his career at British Aerospace and BAE Systems, and potentially other aspects of his life.

I’m glad you found the sources useful. However, withdrawal of the nomination should not be made conditional on my personally adding them to the article. I provided them to address the stated claim of non-notability; that does not create any obligation on me to undertake the subsequent editing. Improving the article is a separate matter open to any editor, including the nominator. Mark83 (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say you should add them, I said they should be added. Regardless, I'm glad you found those sources because I didn't, and that satisfies me that the subject is notable. It closed as keep, so hopefully someone will add the additional sources soon. I'm too busy at the moment with other items, and I seldom edit BLP articles so I'm probably not the best one to do it. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your review of my Moonlight Special Micromouse draft article. I will completely rewrite and reduce the content. I have personal copies of all of the references, including reference 1 which is also available in the Stanford Library system (print version). All of the IEEE publications are available in the IEEE Explore library. I can send you copies of anything you're interested in. I appreciate your guidance. MoonlightDoubleE (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this seriously. Just so you know, offline documents are perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia as references, but it's always best if a location where they can be found is included (some of the citation templates include a field for this). Or even better, if you could make a PDF yourself and upload it somewhere, but that's above and beyond. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the draft. I have revised the draft based on your comments, so I would appreciate it if you could review it again.--SilverMatsu (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I included the background in the second paragraph of the lead section, but perhaps it should be mentioned in the first paragraph instead. Also, I add invisible comments regarding Template:Group-like structures.--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I've revised the draft according to your comments. May I kindly ask you to take a glance at it and check, if your expectations to a revision are met. As a non-registered contributor, I don't want to cause any major extra work by triggering another review of a possibly still inadequate draft. Thank you very much in advance. ~2026-44563-45 (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I had a look and my first takeaway is that there are too many citations, and mostly they are to Scherrer's works or projects affiliated with him, not independent sources. This unfortunately doesn't help notability, since my initial concern was there weren't enough independent sources about him specifically. So the many new citations unfortunately don't add much if anything. The other way someone can pass WP:NPROF is if they're regarded as extremely influential in their field (as stated by a reliable, independent source) or if they've won major international awards or recognized positions: Presidency of an international association, named professorships or endowed chairs, major international awards. I'm not familiar with the awards on the list, but if you could find some more info on those maybe one might be enough to clear the notability standard. You might also try Wikiprojects on related subjects to see if you can find someone to help. The Talk pages sometimes have good discussion, depending on the project. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for these explanations, which have helped me a lot. I would reduce the non-independent sources again to the most relevant ones. I see academic notability justified by the international EARTO award. EARTO counts over 350 research & technology organizations with 228k researchers and engineers in more than 32 countries and awards. It recognizes combinations of interdisciplinary research and industrial application. In 2019, this was the research carried out at Fraunhofer ITWM on radiotherapy planning. The Prize of the Donors' Association is a national award, but one of the highest calibre. This association engages with Germany’s leading scientific societies (Leopoldina, German Research Association, Helmholtz Association, Fraunhofer Society, Humboldt Association, etc.) and recognises cutting-edge research in various categories. In 2016, the interdisciplinary collaborative research between Fraunhofer ITWM, German Cancer Research Centre and Harvard Medical School was also honored for radiotherapy planning. Other sources, such as scientific publications about clinical studies or online media portals, demonstrate the far-reaching practical implications of this research. ~2026-44511-70 (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2026 (UTC)