Talk:Phoebus group

Untitled
I am in the process of writing it entirely. It is still in shamble as I have a town meeting today. The Phoebus group is a well-known group in the helioseismology field. Please drop a note if this is stil problematic. (comment by User: Tappourc


 * sure is. You have to show that they are a notable group, and though we have very little precedent for such multi-location groups, as compared to particular laboratories, i would say that it would probably be that most of the senior members are worth of Wikipedia articles by WP:PROF,  or that the group is frequently referred to by name for their eminence as a leading group on a world-wide basis, as shown by 3rd party published sources (not just  well-known, and not just references to individual members or papers) -- this by WP:GNG
 * As for the names, the rule for all sort of subjects is that we list only the head of the organization, and those with Wikipedia articles.
 * My very strong advice to you is that you try to write acceptable Wikipedia articles  about as  many of them as is notable by WP:PROF. (the implicit standard there is Full Professor). My guess is that many of them might be.  I do not want to delete the article. I want to establish it as notable if possible. We need much more coverage on scientists, but we should start with the most notable.  It won't be my opinion that decides this--it will be the opinion of the community, or more realistically, of those who care to participate in a discussion of this.    DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am about to remove names that are not justified by content in the articles here. I urge you to add some justification for those that are possible.  Alternatively, perhaps it needs a deletion discussion.    DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to the comments made by Aldebaraan66: "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."


 * In Science, the progress is not only made with positive results but also with negative results. It is a misconception to believe that only a positive detection is worth to be published.  It is not because the findings are negative that the effort for making the detection are not paid off in spin-offs in other fields of Science (i.e. asteroseismology benefited a lot from the work of the Phoebus group).  Would the non detection of the Higgs boson be not published?


 * The fact that you do not know the institution should not be the main reason for deletion. It just shows that you do not know these institutes.


 * As mentioned above, the research itself is narrow, but not the means for that research which is used a lot in asteroseismology.


 * Some of us have been working on the detection of g modes for the past 30 years. If we wait until we find them for publishing, we may never publish the work done for trying to detect them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tappourc (talk • contribs) 17:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)