User talk:Tappourc

Speedy deletion nomination of Phoebus group

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Phoebus group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Status and Advice

As reviewing administrator, I did not delete the article, because I think the group is notable. I work frequently with articles on academic faculty and institutions, and we almost never list all the members of a research group, except for the director, and the lists you reinserted cannot remain. However, some or perhaps even all of the people might meet our standards for notability according to WP:PROF, and then I can write that part a little differently to include them. The first step is to check if any of them already have articles, in which case you should make the links from the list. The second is to add now on the article not just their institutions, but their positions there. The third step is to make articles for the individuals for whom it can be justified-- for example, Bo Andersen, as CEO of the Norwegian Space Center unquestionably can be, & I would have done it for you right now, except that I am having trouble finding his CV online. I have not checked the others, but for all practical purposes the Wikipedia standard is the equivalent of Full Professor in the US.

For academic bios, our style usually is:

First, give the basic information--the source should be the CV-- birthplace and date, degrees, previous positions. If there are published books, list them in formal bibliographic style. List the 3 or 4 most influential articles similarly, getting citation figures from Web of Science. Include major national level offices and awards, but not minor ones. Be sure to list editorships (but not mere editorial board membership) --we consider it very important, and you should add it to the articles for the relevant journals also, with a link to the bio. If the subject of the article has any notable students who already would qualify for Wikipedia bios, include them. Their PhD & postdoctoral advisors probably also qualify for bios here; add them and link them, even if they do not yet have articles.

For any part you quote directly from the published bio, include quotation marks and a reference, but otherwise It is not necessary to cite the basic information in detail to more than the official CV. However, give any actual references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Pay particular attention to the way we make links to other Wikipedia articles.

If I can help you with any of this, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

continuing: I left you a note on the article talk p. I want to try to justify the group, but unless you can write articles on the individual members, I don;t think the community will accept it.

And, one thing: one thing: when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to COROT, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. There must be a public reference, private correspondence is unacceptable. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Phoebus group

The article Phoebus group has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

What is the notability of this group? Despite over ten years of research their only finding has been negative. There are no notable members, either by name or institution. The research focus seems to be a very narrow specialty (g-modes) that is of little interest outside the group itself. Compare to other research groups such as RECONS or HATNet that have produced numerous findings of general interest. I would suggest that we wait until after this group has made a number of significant contributions before the article is included.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Aldebaran66 (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)