Talk:Netta Engelhardt

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Women scientists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Physics: Biographies Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.

Notability sources

To editor David Eppstein:, the notability tag indicates that more independent sources are needed to demonstrate notability. This remains true, so please either add these or restore the tag to encourage someone else to. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: False. Read WP:PROF. Or read it again if you already did but failed to understand it. Notability through WP:GNG would require depth of coverage in independent sources. However, notability through PROF is independent of GNG and has an entirely different basis. There is no need of independent sources to demonstrate notability. PROF explicitly states that, for most of its criteria, independence is not required. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein, sorry but (less aggressively) I do not agree with you about the importance of independent sources, and you have misread my comment. Of her sources 2/5 are her work, 3/5 the awards. That is not bad but could be improved; we have both seen editors remove all sources remotely connected to the person, i.e. her faculty page and her thesis. There are also zero sources that are secondary or tertiary reviews. This should be an easy page to improve. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have all seen badly behaving editors. That is no excuse for behaving badly yourself. As for "This should be an easy page to improve": if you want to base biographies on newspaper reprints of press releases by their employers, there appear to be plenty of sources to use. I would rather stick to factual claims less subject to bias and promotionalism. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not accuse you of "behaving badly", so please honor the 4th pillar.

I consider press releases weak, but useful sources due to the legal obligations of universities, part of the mix. She is of course too young for a Festschrift. However, there should be some mention in independent sources that can be found by a forward search. Other standard ones are the pdfs of commencement, high school alumni web pages, a wayback page for her group at Princeton etc. I have even used birth certificates when one editor was definitely beyond the 4th pillar, and had to provide sources to verify PhD students/advisors. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slapping notability banners on articles that meet the relevant notability standards is behaving badly.

Your preference for the superficial appearance of independence through primary sources over independence is misguided and is leading you astray. For instance birth certificates are not acceptable as sources; see WP:BLPPRIMARY. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are violating the 4th pillar, that is inappropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning I do not show proper deference to your wrong opinions? Then let me be disrespectful some more: please read comma splice. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]