Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashid Khalidi bibliography

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge the list of books only to Rashid Khalidi. Sandstein 07:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Khalidi bibliography[edit]

Rashid Khalidi is a somewhat notable academic. He has published several books, which may or may not be notable in and of themselves, all of which are mentioned in the Rashid Khalidi main article. This list, in addition to listing all of the aforementioned books, contains what looks like the entire publication history of the professor, including every non-notable article he has ever published in journals, conferences etc.. There is nothing remotely notable about any of these, and Wikipedia is not MySpace - not a place for an academic to put his publishing resume on line. I have previously prod'ed it, and another editor agreed with the proposal. The creator of the article removed the prod notice, with the rationale that we have a category - Category:Bibliographies by author - which contains numerous Bibliographical lists. It will be noted that the vast majority of the articles in that list are of well known writers - authors of fiction, poets etc, such as Isaac Asimov, Enid Blyton or Graham Greene, not everyday academics. NoCal100 (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator: upon reading this, I was originally opposed to the nomination because I'd seen other similar articles; but I understand and agree with the idea that this really isn't that significant for someone who isn't known primarily as a writer. Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect the books - Mgm|^(talk) 21:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Such articles are justified only for major writers. some particularly notable academics--the really famous ones -- would qualify, but normally we list just the published books or the 4 or 5 most cited or otherwise noteworthy articles (for fields in which they, not the books, are noteworthy.) I am not sure where the cutoff is , but it certainly is far above this, both in number of books and importance. I don't think we'd ever go as far as to list unpublished work and conference papers, as this article actually does. Well, maybe for Einstein or Darwin. There is nothing here to redirect or merge, as his books are already in the main article. The insistence on this calls for a NPOV and PEACOCK check of the main article on him. I see a few other dubious articles in that category, and I will propose merging or deleting them. I can also think of a few dozen scientist as where such a list would be appropriate to make. Not him. I think the general rule of one person one article would apply to 99% of the bios in Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems like a textbook WP:NOT#PAPER situation to me. If he's notable enough to have a standalone article (and he is), then information like this is of potential value to someone interested in his work. Due to the length, it makes sense to break it out into a separate list like this, rather than leaving it within his main article. When I hear that we don't have full bibliographies for most writers, that just makes me think that we need more bibliography articles, not fewer. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What WP:NOT#PAPER says is "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars." The very first of these five pillars says "Wikipedia is not a vanity press" - and links vanity press to WP:NOTABILITY. Can you say what is notable about an unpublished conference paper or public lecture from 1982? In other words, which reliable sources that are independent of the subject provided significant coverage of such papers or lectures, in a way that would satisfy WP:NOTABILITY? NoCal100 (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The unpublished stuff probably shouldn't be included if it can't be cited (per WP:V) - but the unpublished stuff is only a small part of the bibliography. And I have no doubt that there are other scholarly works citing the published papers and articles that make up the verifiable portion of the bibliography, so your argument is invalid when applied to those works (which, as I mentioned earlier, make up the majority of the list under discussion). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For example, here are thirteen citations of his piece "Is there a Future for Middle East Studies?" from various scholarly journals, and here are seven citations of another of his pieces, "The Palestinian Refugee Question: Toward a Solution." As such, the entries in the "Papers, articles, and chapters in edited volumes" section of the bibliography are plenty notable and verifiable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY requires significant coverage - a citation does not meet that requirement. The nature of academic publishing is such that every academic notable enough for an article on WP will have dozens of similar published articles, bulletins etc.. as a normal part of their work, and most of these will have occasionally be cited in someone else's work, so by your reasoning we will soon have the entire publishing history of every academic as a WP article of its own. I don't believe that's what we want, nor that this meets the requirement of WP:NOTABILITY. NoCal100 (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful to Rashid Khalidi. The academic is notable, this bibliography is not. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.