Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of social psychology classics


 * 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. While inclusion criteria is present, "cited in many texts and papers", is vague and this is functionally a synthesis of important works listed or discussed in one book. I agree, however, that the foundation for a better list may be here, perhaps for an article entitled notable works in social psychology. I will gladly userify this article to any party interested in solidifying a stronger inclusion criteria and/or using it as a guide to create articles on books that may themselves deserve encyclopedia articles. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

List of social psychology classics

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

List with no criteria for inclusion. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Represents an editor's POV, not supported by independent referencing. WWGB 08:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Listcruft. Keb25 08:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Neither 'social psychology' nor 'classics' will ever be capable of a sufficiently precise or neutral definition. CIreland 10:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 08:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A classic example of the social psychology of manipulating a large group of students; define something as a "classic" that everyone must have. Mandsford 15:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As the list itself notes: "Any list of classics is sure to be subjective". Per WP:LIST it should go then B figura  (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I've seen better, but there does seem to be criteria: they are specified as listed in a standard reference, and they all of them are obviously major figures with WP articles (or earlier workers about whom an article could clearly be written.). From my limited knowledge of the subject, I think that the individual books would justify WP articles--for the ones I checked, they are mentioned in the articles, and they have certainly been discussed in the literature.  I think deletion should be kept for idiosyncratic or overly extended lists of this sort. DGG (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. This is a meaningful list.Biophys 01:50, 12 September 2007 (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.