Talk:Mahi R. Singh

Draft: notability etc

@Dmgy000, The draft is progressing but I still see many issues. The second sentence ("He has been awarded the Fulbright US-Canada Research Chair for 2021-2022") would help with notability but I cannot find a mention of Singh (let alone a substantive commentary) in the source?

The draft contains swathes of unsourced material, including, but not limited to, the Research section. Please note that Wikipedia is not a de facto website for Singh's biography: see WP:WWIN. Content should be limited to the criteria appropriate for an encyclopedia: please peruse the numerous links I included in my comment on the draft, included especially WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPROF.

Once you have done so, as I have previously suggested, it would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject. It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:NPROF criteria #3, because XXXXX"). Cabrils (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment.

Here is the mention of Singh won the award in reference 1. In the article of Indian News (reference 2) and the database of Fulbright(reference 8) where can search Mahi won the prize. And Early life can be validate through reference 2 and reference 4.

I added more reference to the paper in the Research section, I think these papers could help prove that Mahi's research in these fields. And I think that the Research section is more like an encyclopedia, which tells readers what Nanomaterial and other terms are briefly. Dmgy000 (talk) 08:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cabrils Could you kindly give me more instructions? Dmgy000 (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dmgy000,

The references on the draft page need to link to the appropriate source. Thanks for the screen shot but that is not what the reference on the draft links to.

Again, as I have previously twice suggested, it would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying here the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject. It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:NPROF criteria #3, because XXXXX").

"I added more reference to the paper in the Research section, I think these papers could help prove that Mahi's research in these fields.": NONE of the links you added are accessible (nor formatted correctly). Unless these are papers by independent third parties discussing Singh's work in some detial, they do not help establish notability.

In relation to what content is appropriate to include, please see WP:BLP, and be mindful of WP:NPROF. Cabrils (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@CabrilsThanks for your comment.

Best sources that establish notability of the subject:

1) https://www.fulbright.ca/programs/canadian-scholars/recent-grantees

you can find Mahi in 2021-2022

2) https://www.fulbright.ca/alumni/alumni-databases/fulbright-canada-database

Dr.Mahi can be searched in field of physics

3) https://physics.uwo.ca/people/faculty_web_pages/singh.html

I think the page now meets WP:NPROF criteria #3, because Fulbright Canada Research Chairs are intended for Canadian citizens who are exceptional scholars and/or experienced professionals who wish to conduct research and/or lecture in the United States. And Mahi was the director and senator of some program in Western University.

" Unless these are papers by independent third parties discussing Singh's work in some detial, they do not help establish notability." Do you mean that I need to delete the "Research" section? Dmgy000 (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dmgy000,

Thanks that's good progress.

Although none of the listed references you have provided for WP:THREE are actually WP:RS, and all only reference the single Fulbright Canada Research Chair, I think this probably does meet WP:NPROF, so I'm comfortable that notability has now been met.

However, regarding the Research section: yes I think there's problems including that without reliable sources. I feel the draft is becoming too much like a LinkedIn CV, especially with your conflict of interest, so I think that section should be removed.

I have also take the liberty of tightening the other material to retain what I feel is appropriate and sourced.

I am also concerned that the image breaches copyright, which Wikipedia takes very seriously. Please see WP:COPYVIO.

I trust this is helpful. Cabrils (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cabrils

Thanks for your comments. They really help a lot.

I delete all detail parts in research section, and I didn't use any image which breach copyright in the draft except the one used in the previous Talk. I wonder how to delete it.

Beside of the image, is there any other I need to improve?

Thanks again for your time and patience. Dmgy000 (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dmgy000,

Thanks for the kind words.

I've removed the image. I'm content to accept the page at this point, pending any thoughts you might have? Cabrils (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cabrils

Thanks, currently there is no more to add. Dmgy000 (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments left by AfC reviewers

• Comment: Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF) but presently it is not clear that it does.
  As you may know, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects 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. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’.
  Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link).
  Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.
  It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:PROF criteria #3, because XXXXX").
  Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page and I would be happy to reassess. Cabrils (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)