Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications by Robert Cialdini


 * 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 delete. As pointed out by DGG, this is a vanity article, and there is no meaningful content in the history to preserve. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

List of publications by Robert Cialdini

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I am not sure which policy to quote, but I am quite sure that Wikipedia is not the place for the detailed list of publication of some academic... Goochelaar (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (See below.) If a policy is needed, I'm going with WP:IINFO. Robert Cialdini may be notable, but this extensive list belongs neither in his article nor as an article of its own. Deor (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lists, i.e. discriminate, organized, and verifiable. Even if we put it on his own article, we would merge and redirect there without deleting per the GFDL.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - agree with User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Wikipedia has numerous lists of individual author's publications Dbiel (Talk) 03:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the two user's above, this information is verifiable and potentially useful to people wishing to know more about this man. Atyndall93  |  talk  08:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While "it is useful" is known not to be a good reason to keep an article, I believe than anybody interested in somebody's complete list of publications may well refer to specialised web pages (for instance, the personal page of the author, or bibliographical sites), which are, or should be, linked in the main article. As it is, this article looks useful like a timetable or a telephone guide: i.e., it might indeed be useful, but not encyclopedic. Goochelaar (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination, Deor and remark on non-encyclopedic nature of such list. --Ruziklan (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PERNOM and WP:UNENCYC. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing these to me. I was not voting, rather shortly relisted most convincing arguments why the page should have been deleted. However, I could have been more specific, that is true. The fact is, that below given proposal is very good one. --Ruziklan (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and I appreciate that you responded to the advice maturely. Happy editing!  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize in advance for a complicated !vote.
 * It looks like someone with a user name identical to that of the webmaster of Cialdini’s web site simply copied Cialdini’s CV into the main article last November 30, causing the article to become too bloated. As a result, another editor chose to move the list of publications into a new article rather than remove information that is far too detailed for Wikipedia.  I propose the following:
 * 1. Revert the Robert Cialdini article to the version before the CV was copied into the article.
 * 2. Redirect the List of Publications article to the main Cialdini article. The main article already had reasonable list of representative publications, so a merge is not necessary.
 * 3. Finally, incorporate good faith edits made since last November and include an external link to his CV for anyone who wants this level of detail.
 * If there is consensus to do the above, I am willing to do the work.
 * FreeKresge (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your solution is one I can live with. Deor (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also be willing to accept the compromise if it is a redirect without deletion as it is a legitimate search term and we would also keep editors' contributions public. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Go with FreeKresge's Suggestion This compromise appears to be the best course of action. -- Sharkface T/C 18:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I like FreeKresge's proposal, and thank him for it and for his willingness to implement it! Goochelaar (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...but stand my original opinion that an article like this has no place in WP. Goochelaar (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I support FreeKresge's proposal. I was under the impression that lists of publications and works were acceptable (I've seen many lists of works by authors before), so I moved the content from Robert Cialdini into a separate article. In my opinion, this List of publications article does not need to be redirected, per criterion #7 of WP:R. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 00:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support FreeKresge. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Support merge per FreeKresge -- a great solution. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support FreeKresge's proposal. Nsk92 (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. On second thought, delete is a better option here, per DGG's comments. Nsk92 (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete as absurd overemphasis. I see no reason whatever to redirect. There is a place for these lists, and they are the websites of individuals, except for the very most famous at the level of Darwin--and of course people whose notability is their individual publications, such as literary and musical authors. We do not need to duplicate it. I would like to send a strong message that full lists of scientific papers is vanity. I don't lightly use the word, but these aren't all scientific papers --  this is an undifferentiated list including non-peer-reviewed popular articles, chapters in collected works, and even 1-p long book reviews of other peoples books.  We have already included the most important, as judged by some reasonable standard.  DGG (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per DGG. I do not support the suggested redirect, as it is an unlikely search term and an external link to the online CV seems adequate. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. One of the things wikipedia is not is a bibliographic database. Part of the point of having an article on an academic here is to condense the (generally long) publication list down to a smaller list of particularly notable works and lines of research. This doesn't do that, and I don't see what encyclopedic purpose it does serve. In particular, do not merge and do not do the equivalent of merging by reverting the biography to a point at which it included all this cruft. The main article on this academic should list only a few selected publications, or even better describe them rather than listing them. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Follow-up I went ahead and removed CV related material from the Robert Cialdini article, restored the much shorter list of publications that was originally in that article, and added an external link to Cialdini’s CV.  I agree with David Eppstein that a description of the selected publications would be better than a list.  However, I am no longer in academia and do not have good access to an academic library (the nearest one is about an hour away from where I live).
 * There appears to be some disagreement about whether to redirect the List of Publications article or to delete it entirely, so I will leave that up to the closing admin. I personally fall in the “redirects are cheap” camp, but I have no strong opinions either way and doubt that it will be a common search term.--FreeKresge (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. per DGG's well-made point that wikipedia is not a webhost for the CVs, bibliographies, and vanities of individuals. Pastordavid (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per previous comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't see why we wouldn't just redirect it to Robert Cialdini and at least keep the contribution history public. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * exactly what is there valuable in the contribution history? DGG (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Should any of those who edited the article ever run for adminship, it is beneficial for those of us who are not admins and cannot see deleted contribs to be able to get as full a picture as possible of their contribution history. Because we can redirect this page to Robert Cialdini, I see no harm in doing so.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It hardly has a complex history: there are three editors, one (already an admin) who split it from Robert Cialdini, one who tagged it for AfD and one who added a couple of external links. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Grand Roi, what you say about preserving histories could be said for any and all articles do be deleted. So, we should never delete anything, just in case? Goochelaar (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We should delete hoaxes, copy vios, and libel. But when it is not a hoax, copy vio, or libel and has a redirect location, instead of deletion, we should redirect.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete In view of above arguments I change to Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC).


 * 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.