212:
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 I don't think we'd ever go as far as to list unpublished work and conference papers, as this article actually does.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 Knowledge (XXG).
314:- 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
280:) - but the unpublished stuff is only a small part of the bibliography.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). -
139:
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
235:
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
211:
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
178:
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.
258:. 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
297:
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.
253:
articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars." The very first of these five pillars says "Knowledge (XXG) is not a vanity press" - and links vanity press to
148:- 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
128:
135:
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
95:
90:
99:
82:
140:
Knowledge (XXG) 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
236:
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. -
17:
294:
290:
351:
327:
302:
284:
271:
240:
223:
203:
188:
169:
64:
370:
145:
36:
293:
are thirteen citations of his piece "Is there a Future for Middle East
Studies?" from various scholarly journals, and
86:
78:
70:
369:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
299:
281:
237:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
201:
315:
307:
259:
255:
144:. The creator of the article removed the prod notice, with the rationale that we have a category -
323:
267:
197:
165:
184:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
246:
232:
348:
344:
136:
55:
49:
277:
319:
263:
219:
161:
157:
180:
149:
116:
153:
276:
The unpublished stuff probably shouldn't be included if it can't be cited (per
214:
363:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
347:. The academic is notable, this bibliography is not.
141:
123:
112:
108:
104:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
373:). No further edits should be made to this page.
251:This policy is not a free pass for inclusion:
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
146:Category:Bibliographies by author
1:
231:. This seems like a textbook
352:00:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
328:15:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
303:14:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
285:14:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
272:03:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
241:16:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
224:17:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
204:21:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
189:05:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
170:02:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
65:07:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
79:Rashid Khalidi bibliography
71:Rashid Khalidi bibliography
390:
160:, not everyday academics.
48:the list of books only to
366:Please do not modify it.
142:agreed with the proposal
32:Please do not modify it.
312:significant coverage
343:anything useful to
300:Hit bull, win steak
282:Hit bull, win steak
238:Hit bull, win steak
194:Merge and redirect
63:
381:
368:
126:
120:
102:
62:
60:
53:
44:The result was
34:
389:
388:
384:
383:
382:
380:
379:
378:
377:
371:deletion review
364:
122:
93:
77:
74:
56:
54:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
387:
385:
376:
375:
358:
356:
355:
345:Rashid Khalidi
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
226:
206:
191:
137:Rashid Khalidi
133:
132:
73:
68:
50:Rashid Khalidi
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
386:
374:
372:
367:
361:
360:
359:
353:
350:
346:
342:
339:
329:
325:
321:
317:
316:WP:NOTABILITY
313:
309:
308:WP:NOTABILITY
306:
305:
304:
301:
296:
292:
289:For example,
288:
287:
286:
283:
279:
275:
274:
273:
269:
265:
261:
260:WP:NOTABILITY
257:
256:WP:NOTABILITY
252:
248:
244:
243:
242:
239:
234:
230:
227:
225:
221:
217:
216:
210:
207:
205:
202:
199:
195:
192:
190:
186:
182:
177:
174:
173:
172:
171:
167:
163:
159:
158:Graham Greene
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
130:
125:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
365:
362:
357:
340:
311:
250:
247:WP:NOT#PAPER
233:WP:NOT#PAPER
228:
213:
208:
196:the books -
193:
175:
150:Isaac Asimov
134:
57:
45:
43:
31:
28:
154:Enid Blyton
58:Sandstein
349:Lankiveil
310:requires
249:says is "
320:NoCal100
264:NoCal100
162:NoCal100
129:View log
181:Nyttend
96:protect
91:history
209:delete
176:Delete
124:delete
100:delete
341:Merge
245:What
127:) – (
117:views
109:watch
105:links
46:merge
16:<
324:talk
295:here
291:here
278:WP:V
268:talk
229:Keep
220:talk
185:talk
166:talk
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
262:?
215:DGG
198:Mgm
156:or
326:)
318:.
270:)
222:)
187:)
168:)
152:,
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
52:.
354:.
322:(
298:-
266:(
218:(
200:|
183:(
164:(
131:)
121:(
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.