User talk:Yaris678 - Wikipedia

An article you recently created, Max Mayer (engineer), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Onel5969, please explain. The article cites two reliable, independent sources, both of which discuss Mayer. Yaris678 (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, I can't access the one document with the page number provided. A search of the book on Google Books does reveal that they get 4 mentions, two of which (pp 13 and 46) are more than just simple mentions, but neither appears to be in-depth coverage. The second source, once you download and search the pdf, reveals a short, half-paragraph mention of Mayer. Neither is truly in-depth coverage. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

WP:GNG uses the phrase "significant coverage", rather than "in-depth coverage". It says

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

• The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
• Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

These examples obviously leaves a fairly wide margin, between a single sentence and a whole book, where judgement must be applied.

The coverage is enough that the article does not require original research, which seems to be the main point.

A search of Mayer within Safety Factors and Reliability: Friends or foes? (ref 2) in Google Books gives 10 hits.

"p. 272. With biographical information on Mayer." is from the Google translation of the original German article. Page 272 is not in Google Books, but Page 273 is, and you can see that it has the second half of the biography, ending

Bolotin (1965) writes "The works of M. Mayer, N. F. Khotsialov and N.S. Streletckii were substantially the first works in the domain of reliability theory. A number of question of reliability theory were first formulated and solved in these works, a circumstance which merits being noticed in modern publications on reliability theory."

M. Mayer passed away on July 29, 1967 in Starnberg.

The biography must be about 1 page long. This coverage seems significant to me.

Yaris678 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

In your comments on my request for Digital marketing system, I think you might have meant to ping Johnuniq instead of me. It got archived quickly before I could reply, though. I requested pending changes because of the low edit volume, but it is kind of borderline and I think within Johnuniq's discretion to go with semi-protection instead of pending changes. MaterialsPsych (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are right. I did mean to ping Johnuniq. This was my comment, in case Johnuniq is wondering. I am happy with the decision, just making a minor point about PC/semi/ECP. Yaris678 (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I noticed your comment and you are correct about my mistaken summary of pending changes. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply