This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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 articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles 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.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women 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.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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 writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Reverted again! Perhaps it's just as well. It is difficult to express my concerns with a tag. There is no point in creating an article about someone unless we can say something interesting about them. An academic affiliation is not interesting (or notable). Nor is it interesting that Kedem wrote highly-cited papers in certain fields, because there is no hint of why these papers are important. The collaboration to decipher Hebrew writings is intriguing, although again there is no hint of how her work helps. That was my motivation for adding a third-party tag - we need the whys, and we need independent sources to support them.
David Eppstein, you seem to see tags as an attack on an article, or perhaps a sort of vandalism. I think they alert outside editors to important issues that they may be able to help resolve. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Generally I view tags as something to do only when there is something seriously wrong with an article that is not easy for the person placing the tag to fix. Otherwise it is better to talk it to the talk page, as you have done now, for a couple of reasons: first, because it makes it easier to express your views more clearly and second because the tags make the articles look ugly (in contrast to which the appearance of the talk page is not a problem). In any case, what you seem to want is an "I think the content of this article is boring" tag rather than what you actually used, which says more "I don't think the sources make the existing content sufficiently verifiable". Feel free to find less boring things to say about the subject, but I don't think we're here to be entertaining. I strongly disagree with your "an academic affiliation is not notable", though. If by "notable" you means "lends notability to the subject", then you're missing the point; her notability rests on her accomplishments, not her affiliation, and has been clearly settled by the recent AfD; attempting to re-litigate the AfD through tag placement is pointless. And if by "notable" you mean "worthy of inclusion in this article", then an academic's affiliation is not just worthy of inclusion but necessary to include, regardless of how much it bores you. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I am tagging articles more frequently than usual because I am adding banners for WikiProject Women Scientists. I try to just add improvements where they are obvious, but when it looks like a more difficult problem I tag it so it shows up in the cleanup listings for the project. I'm not very concerned about the appearance of a stub.
I wouldn't have any problem with the content of this article if it were combined with something more substantial. I just think that so far all this article says is that "This person is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia." Is there more to say? RockMagnetist (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I do think that (finding things you can fix quickly and otherwise tagging) is an appropriate use of tags. But I don't think you chose the right tag in this case. Maybe you wanted {{expand article}}? I view it as currently saying something more like "this person is a researcher in this specialty". But I don't see the existence of short articles such as this one is now as being particularly problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
.png){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
