Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientific articles by Ted Kaptchuk


 * 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, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

List of scientific articles by Ted Kaptchuk

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; Wikipedia is neither a catalogue nor a database. Created as a rather WP:POINTy spinoff after consensus came out against the edits this article's creator wanted to make. Ironholds (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete -- list articles are generally supposed to be lists of Wikipedia articles, yes? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep List class articles are clearly appropriate for Wikipedia as evidenced by such articles as List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein, a featured list article. Manual of Style (lists) makes it very clear that this sort of this in appropriate and very useful and Manual of Style (lists of works) establishes the specifics for the use of this list, which is religiously adhered to. Any claims that the creation of this article is in anything other than good faith and for the betterment of Wikipedia is confusing, strange and a clear violation of assuming good faith. Basket of Puppies  04:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A note that BasketOfPuppies is the creator of this article. This article was created following a discussion at Talk:Ted Kaptchuk and on Ted Kaptchuk itself, including multiple reverts, which confirmed that the inclusion there was not appropriate - I think good faith is rather gone at this point. The use of List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein as an example is a poor one - Einstein's journal publications listed there all had coverage in third-party, reliable sources, while Kaptchuk's articles do not. The comments regarding Manual of Style (lists of works) are similarly inaccurate; as an MoS guideline, it is not "religiously adhered to" - the notice at the top makes clear it has exceptions. Furthermore, the examples given are "authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists", not scientists, and the mere existence of a manual of style for a topic does not guarantee that every possible element of that topic deserves a) its own article and b) coverage at all. Ironholds (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I also point you towards WP:PURPLIST, in the link you just gave, which provides that lists are meant to be navigable tables of internal links. Ironholds (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally, Articles_for_deletion #10 clearly says "If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Did you attempt to cleanup this article or add maintenance tags to it before nominating it for deletion? Why aren't you following deletion procedural policy? Basket of Puppies  04:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it's not policy. One is not bound to follow WP:BEFORE. Secondly, adding tags and attempting to clean it up requires that the basic premise of the article to be debated for deletion be worth including in the first place. Ironholds (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Splitting says "If an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split be carried out." Bolding is mine. Splitting the list of articles by Kaptchuk is appropriate and suggested by WP:SPLITTING as the length and sheer numbers of articles by Kaptchuk makes his BLP look lopsided and have poor readability. Regarding the notability of his articles, the whole reason why he is notable is because of his research. The converage of his research is well documented in the reliable news. Basket of Puppies  04:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, as with WP:BEFORE, the splitting guideline presupposes that the content would be independently worthy of coverage. The citations are all well and good, and would justify an article about the piece of research in question, but they all appear to be focused on the same thing. This is not the same as, to use your example, the coverage of Einstein's research, nor does it indicate notability of either his works individually or, more crucially, his works as a whole - simply a single example. Ironholds (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A list-class article is supposed to be a list of a set of information. It is bad for the project to have a list-class article for the scientific articles of a renowned scientist? Basket of Puppies  05:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is meant to be a list that demonstrates notability, contains internal links and in that regard acts as a navigation tool, and is verifiable through third-party sources. This list is not. Ironholds (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The bot hasn't even finished filling in all the fields. Don't you think it would be best to wait and see how the article develops before jumping to an AfD? Basket of Puppies  05:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And usually I would. The content in question, however, has already been found on en-wiki elsewhere, and was not developed there. There is no reason to suggest that its presence in a standalone article is any more individually notable than its presence in Ted Kaptchuk. Perhaps if you could come up with an argument better than "it might develop and become useful, or alternately show that in can develop rather than spending your time creating new MOS guidelines to justify including this article. Ironholds (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For one very simple reason- I am waiting for the bot to finish filling in all the fields. Once that is done then I will be working on it. In the meantime, I find great value in participating in community discussion as to the proper procedure for this very question. Basket of Puppies  05:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How does bot form-willing prevent you making changes to those entries already filled out, say? And yes, I'm sure you consider participating in the most appropriate forum for discussion a highly important part of editing - you are to be commended for it. Ironholds (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: There is now a proposed guideline reflecting this very situation. The input and feedback of the community is, as always, welcome. Basket of Puppies  05:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Ted Kaptchuk is no Albert Einstein. It's not clear that the primary subject is notable under WP:ACADEMIC; certainly a spin-off article is not notable either. Kuguar03 (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just curious- are you saying that Kaptchuk isn't notable and thus this article needs deletion? Basket of Puppies  06:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I said that Kaptchuk may not be notable under the guidelines in WP:ACADEMIC. Have you looked at those guidelines? But this discussion isn't about that page, it's about this page, one that needlessly lists publications, something that wouldn't be appropriate in the vast majority of cases. Kuguar03 (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am extremely familiar with WP:ACADEMIC and it appears to me that Kaptchuk easily passes the "professor test" as described here. Are you suggesting an additional AfD for the subject himself, as that is what your !delete seems to indicate. Basket of Puppies  06:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I might, I'd need to look into it more first, but when and if I decide to do so, that can be discussed in the appropriate place. For this discussion, you should limit your responses to other editors to those that are both relevant and truly needed. Haranguing every person who disagrees with your position could be considered tendentious editing. Just some friendly advice. Kuguar03 (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * AfD is a discussion as to the application of the relevant policies and guidelines of the subject and as they relate to notability. It is shocking that you would even suggest tendentious editing in a forum that is specifically designed to facilitate discussion. Basket of Puppies  06:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between discussion and what you're doing. Producing more text than the editors who don't support your position will not cause you to "win" by default. Please show some restraint and respect. Kuguar03 (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever are you talking about? I am not here to win or lose but to discuss. Please- keep the conversation on the topic of this AfD and not something else. If you have issues with me then please discuss them with me on my talk page, which is the most appropriate venue. Thanks! Basket of Puppies  06:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete undue weight. Lists of articles by Professor X should be presumptively non-notable unless shown otherwise. MLA (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The scientific articles by Ted Kaptchuk are not a notable body of work. WP:SPLIT can not be used to justify creating an article, only to justify removing content from an article that is too long. The new article must stand on its on merits, "a parent article happend to be too long" is not a reason to have an article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The creation of this new article appears to come out frustration with the way some guidelines are being applied, and was created to make a point. The content of this article was originally in Ted Kaptchuk‎. After two other editors and I insisted this content was unnecessary, Basket of Puppies moved the questionable content to this new article. Manual_of_Style reminds editors to "Avoid listing an excessive number of external links; Wikipedia is not a link repository" and LINKFARM adds "excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." This content didn't belong in Ted Kaptchuk‎, and it doesn't belong in this new article. Kingturtle = (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply The creation of this article was in no way to create a POINT but rather to resolve the issue of a lopsided article based upon a very long publication section. I hope you will afford me the benefit of the doubt and not immediately react to article creation as a policy violation. Basket of Puppies  14:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - In the spirit of WP:NOTRESUME, I'd also say toss this per WP:NotCurriculumVitae. The subject himself meets the general notability guidelines (as I have noted at his AfD), but I don't see the slightest rational justification for this.  He's noted for work on placebos, but that notability does not transfer to the body of his publications. Tarc (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This list is not notable. I agree with many of the other reasons put forward above for deletion. The guy is notable. This list is not. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  06:55, 14 February 2011 (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.