Talk:Klara Kedem

What I meant by the tag
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)