Draft talk:Pascal Lottaz

Asking for comments about "Reason/s: more sources needed"

User Grapesurgeon moved page Pascal Lottaz to Draft:Pascal Lottaz without leaving a redirect: Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace. Reason/s: more sources needed .

Being used to the US legal system, I find such remark "arbitrary and capricious" (see Standard of review for definition). The number of cited sources is comparable to the numbers in the articles about other International Relations professors (e.g. Steven Walt).

I am asking more experienced wiki-editors, how this draft can be improved, and what is needed to make it publishable. ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC) ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon::

The page seems to be adequately sourced from several sources. Can you be more specific with your concerns?

It appears that you preemptively drafted this article due to possible ties between ArcturusNotTaurus and the subject without giving ArcturusNotTaurus any time to respond, and not due to inadequate sourcing. ArcturusNotTaurus has responded that they have no ties with the subject. So, barring any other serious concerns, I don't see why this can't be moved back into mainspace as-is.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I should have indicated the reasoning better, that's on me. Imo doesn't pass WP:NPROF, and sourcing especially doesn't demonstrate that. grapesurgeon (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) I see

"The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity."

Prof. Lottaz runs several internet channels with a large number of subscribers:

https://www.youtube.com/@neutralitystudies with 345K subscribers and 1K videos;

https://substack.com/@pascallottaz with 26K+ subscribers;

https://x.com/PLottaz?lang=en with 18.8K followers;

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=CeXawRQAAAAJ&hl=en

This is quite an achievement for someone, who is a boring professor and not a professional blogger. ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Have news media written about his channels? We don't use social media stats on their own to prove notability; think of all the random YouTube channels that farm views and likes that could exploit this to get a wikipedia article. I'm not saying he's doing that, explaining why we don't just accept that grapesurgeon (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for such thoughtful answer. Unfortunately, most internet searches return results about Dr. Lottaz's youtube channel "Neutrality Studies" rather than about the man behind it. Apparently, Pascal himself keeps a low media profile. I could not even find anything about his marital status. Amazon does show, that he is a prolific book author: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B00IZ02A1O . But I understand now, that these alone do not meet the Notability criterion ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Yea unfortunately not. You're welcome to keep an eye out for more coverage. It may turn out that 6 months later he gets coverage and becomes notable enough for an article. I've seen that happen plenty of times grapesurgeon (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@ArcturusNotTaurus External links are not allowed in the body of an article, they can only go in an "external links" section. So re-inserting them after they've been deleted, not fixing the red-lined source errors, and asserting that the subject is notable less than a day after the article was declined, suggests that (despite asking for tips in the Teahouse) you are in fact not taking on board feedback. Mme Maigret (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Please understand, that I am new to Wiki, and -since I cannot spend more that 3 h per week on average on mi wiki-work- my learning pace is slow.

Could you please explain what "external links" mean?

I thought I was inserting in-line citations in the body of the article. ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly, that "red-lined source errors" mean, that the corresponding wiki-article has not been created? I thought, that making a referral to a future article is not a crime but a virtue ! Please provide a specific wiki-policy, that contradicts my statement. ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

You can just look at the bottom of the page and see the errors in red. Maproom has also flagged them. Mme Maigret (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

But you haven't just inserted in line citations. The entire "Academic databases", "web profiles" and "biography" at the bottom consists of external links. If these are just possible sources, delete them before resubmitting. If you want them to remain available for people to view, you need to move them to "External links". Mme Maigret (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)