Talk:Riin Tamm

Untitled
For Your information: A list of her academic articles can be found on the Russian and Danish versions of this article. This should bring You her academical credentials. best regards Rmir (Estonia)
 * Six publications is not bad at all for a grad student, but completely inadequate to meet the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. Wait another 10 years and we'll see again... --Randykitty (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have done some cleanup work on the article. I have not yet decided whether I'll take this to AfD, but this is borderline notable at best. --Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Publications
Whatever notability there is derives from Tamm's activities as a science popularizer, not as a scientist. Her few publications have hardly been cited at all (highest citation count in the Web of Science is 8). As WP articles should not be a CV, there is no reason to include this complete list of all her publications. As not a single one of these articles has any sign of notability, a partial list is not justified either. My removal of the list was reverted twice, once by someone who (erroneously) seemed to think that it had been done by mistake (right, with an edit summary explaining the removal?) and once by an editor claiming that it was vandalism. You may disagree with the removal (in which case you should turn to the talk page and discuss things here), but vandalism is something else entirely. Unless someone comes up with a good reason to keep this section, I will remove it again tomorrow. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Apart from exceptional cases such as blatant libel or copyright violation, neither of which apply here, removal of a significant section from an article should be done only after discussion on the talk page. The discussion should be allowed to run for a minimum of seven days to allow for input from those who are only able to access the internet once a week.  It should then be done only if there is clear consensus.  I strongly oppose removal of this list of publications, which I consider to contribute significantly to the readers' understanding of the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow! That's a lot of policy here that I've never even heard of! Perhaps for my education, you can provide me with some links to the appropriate guidelines that stipulate this procedure should be followed? I just went by WP:BOLD, but I understand from what you write that this now has been superseded. Anyway, we never include a complete bibliography for any scientist, but just a few notable ones (generally 3-5). These publications have gone unnoticed. They are mentioned in an earlier section ("Tamm has published in scientific journals"). I see no reason to list them here, they can easily be found in the references given. --Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The guidelines seem quite sensible to me. If a change seems like an obvious, uncontroversial improvement, go ahead and make it.  But cutting out large chunks of content may be assumed to be controversial. After two reverted attempts, removing the list of publications is clearly controversial.  So discuss it on the talk page and give a reasonable amount of time for a consensus to emerge. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The first reversal had an edit summary that obviously indicated this person was mistaken about why the deletion was done. The second reversal was by someone who was upset about a tag placed on the French version of this article, followed me here, and then marked my edits as vandalism because there was a typo in them (see the talk page -and its history- of that editor). I can't find that serious reversals of a well-argued edit. Anyway, we're on the talk page now and I'd like to hear some reason why the arguments that I gave above do not apply here and we should keep this stuff. --Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It is normal for an article about a person to list some or all of their published works, if there are any, whether or not those works are individually notable. I strongly oppose removal of this list of publications, which I consider to contribute significantly to the readers' understanding of the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, for academics it is not "normal ... to list some or all of their published works". Publishing is what academics do and even non-notable academics will often have dozens of publications. We don't give complete lists of publications even for Nobel winners. See, for example, Gerald Edeleman, John Eccles (neurophysiologist), Rita Levi-Montalcini, or Joshua Lederberg. All were very important scientists, notable for their scientific publications. Yet we only use their publications as sources for the description of their research and only mention the most important ones in the text, if at all. An exhaustive list is almost never given (Einstein is an exception, where we have a list article on all his publications, but given his stature as a scientist, that is fully justified). --Randykitty (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Notable?
Does this woman really meet notability requirements? Per Randykitty's comment above, she seems to be mostly notable "as a science popularizer". As far as I can tell, she's been called a popularizer because :
 * In 2012 she was given second prize for Estonian National Science Communication in the category "Best popularizing scientist, journalist, teacher etc in the field of science and technology".

Is this really sufficient to meet notability guidelines? Can anyone point to any other scientists made notable by the Estonian National Science Communication?

I think we may have a candidate for deletion here. How did this article make it to the front page? NickCT (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is essentially an extreme form of "college cruft". David (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Far as I can see, this whole story started with the photo, which became a featured photo on Commons and then people created an article for this person. Notability, I think, is borderline at best. It sure fails WP:PROF. All depends on whether one thinks that the interviews in the Estonian sources referenced in the article represent sufficient in-depth coverage by reliable sources for WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG... --Randykitty (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the subject meets any of the relevant notability criteria.--ukexpat (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly I'm amazed this was allowed to get as far as the Wikipedia frontpage, with photo too! Wish my CV had such attention... David (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that this is a borderline keep for now. I looked through Google and found one Estonian reference to this scientist. I would be concerned if more sources were not added at a future date. As for WP:PROF, I think that the subject of the article meets Criterion 3. Wer900 • talk 22:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ??? Citerion 3??? You're kidding, I think. --Randykitty (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. I looked at the associations she was a board member of and they weren't as high-profile as expected. Wer900 • talk 18:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Following the comments above expressing notability concerns, I have nominated this article for deletion. NickCT (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is quite surprising to me that this article is allowed to exist without enough notability. How did it avoid the fate of being deleted? Luhungnguong (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Read the AFD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Geneetik Riin Tamm.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Geneetik Riin Tamm.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 4, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-03-04. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)