Talk:Neil Siegel

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neil Siegel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130430234913/http://www.ieee.org/membership_services/membership/fellows/chronology/fellows_2011.html to http://www.ieee.org/membership_services/membership/fellows/chronology/fellows_2011.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This is just a resume. Delete for non-notability.

This is just a resume. It should deleted for non-notability. Patents are primary source and do not establish notability. That a person was involved with a patent is commonplace, and not notable enough by itself for inclusion even if it was secondary. Patents are frequently included on resumes, hence adding to the appearance as a resume.

I'm sure he's a fine fellow and he's clearly an excellent professional, he's also supposedly the brother of Jack Black, but none of that is sufficient notability for inclusion.

All but two of the refs are primary source or subject-published. Half of the sources are just patents. The photo was even provided by the subject himself (but innocently-so, it appears). The only real secondary source is wholly unremarkable, the other secondary source is just someone saying that he is her accompanist.

Ref 1-4: Patents (primary source)
Ref 5-6: Self published by subject.
Ref 7: Membership entry from a professional organization (not notable, one of many)(primary source)
Ref 8: Membership entry from professional organization at some sort of high level ("fellow") (not notable, one of many)(primary source)
Ref 9-11: Supposedly awards from a professional organizations. Nice, but primary, not mentioned by secondary source(s). Not sufficiently noteworthy even if each was secondary (even I have two awards from professional organizations). Also, all three are broken links.
Ref 12: Just a link to another Wikipedia page, not a ref. Should be a link, not an inline cite.
Ref 13-17: Patents (primary source)
Ref 18: Apparently he's somebody's accompanist. (The first secondary source in the bunch! But, insufficiently notable, perfectly ordinary)
Ref 19: The only secondary source of the kind that would be normally included in support of notability of a subject. Still, a weak source, and only one.
Ref 20: A primary source listing of faculty members. Not notable as all faculty are listed (one of many).
Ref 21: Broken link which is supposedly a primary source supporting that he's Jack Black's brother, which isn't notable enough for inclusion even if it was secondary.

67.248.17.85 (talk) 03:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)