User talk:Baruchbm

Welcome!

Hello, Baruchbm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as List of Researchers at Racah Institute, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Pam D  17:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of List of Researchers at Racah Institute


The article List of Researchers at Racah Institute has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Too incomplete to be encyclopedia-worthy

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 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 will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pam D  17:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Status and Advice
I'm one of the admins here who frequently works on the articles on academic faculty and other scientists.

It is established practice here that a list of this sort should only include those persons notable enough for Wikipedia articles: either those who already have such articles, or those who are obviously  qualified for them. I;ver looked at the Institute page, and most of these would in fact be qualified--but not all. The Institute uses the term  academic faculty for all ranks of professors, not just  full professors. Although this is not a formal criterion at our relevant guideline, WP:PROF, I think it reasonably clear, that those who are in fact full professors at this famous institute at Hebrew University will be qualified for Wikipedia articles, and I will be very glad to help you defend them. But it is not obvious that those under the rank of full professor will be considered qualified. Whether or not we ought to include associate and assistant professors routinely, the practice is that we rarely do include them. I'll often defend such articles, but my position often does not have consensus.

What you therefore need to do is to remove those under the rank of full professor, and for the full professors give not only the field in the list, but the title, e.g. Professor of Astrophysics--and then, proceed to write the articles. There is no need to do them all at once, & in fact I'd spread them out, 2 or 3 a week, but you ought to do them. They needn't include all the information suggested below, but they should include enough of the basics so that someone who is not a scientist will easily be able to see that they are notable.

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 Scopus or Web of Science or Google Scholar, or some other appropriate source. Do not include conference presentations, book chapters, and other minor published work. Such a list needs to be frequently updated, and belongs in the CV, not an encyclopedia.

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 person has any notable students who 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.

It is not necessary to cite the basic information in detail to other 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. For any part you quote directly from a published bio, include quotation marks and a reference.

Pay particular attention to the way we make links to other Wikipedia articles. Avoid WP:Peacock terms: do not use words of praise, ofr state that the person is important: the contents of the article will show it.

Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective students--that sort of content is considered promotional. Keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of  press releases or  web sites, or CVs,  which are usually more expansive.

After that, you can try with the associate professors, but do them one at a time to see the reaction here, so you do not waste your efforts.

If I can help you with any of this, let me know.  DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)