Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anne_Hiltner_Publications References

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. Sandstein 11:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Anne Hiltner Publications

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No entry exists on Anne Hiltner.. why do we need this list then. Saqib ( talk) 07:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

A page about Anne Hiltner is currently being made and it seemed better to create a separate page for her publications rather than list them in the article itself. That page will be up by the end of the month. mem272 17:29, 7 April 2018

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE plus the fact the author does not have an article, therefore no notability has been established. Ajf773 ( talk) 10:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Notability most certainly is established. Anne Hiltner (assuming she is P. Anne Hiltner as this article says) has a GScholar h-index of 47, including papers with 501, 270 and 235 cites and thirteen papers with 100+ cites. That satisfies WP:PROF. Move the article to Anne Hiltner and rewrite as a bio (@ User:Mem272: I suggest you carry out the move and rewrite asap). There is nothing wrong with having a bibliography in her article either. James500 ( talk) 11:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The creator has been working on a bio of Hiltner (who certainly seems notable) in a sandbox ( Special:Contributions/Mem272). This is a new user who needs a bit of coaching. Wikipedia usually includes publications on the main bio page, but doesn't include complete lists of publications for scientists, even though I am not sure why it would be a problem. (Why do we have complete role lists for actors and not complete publication lists for academics? It would probably be a good service to readers). In any case, if a selection needs to be made, the best person to consult is probably DGG ( talk · contribs) who is a science librarian. -- Hegvald ( talk) 12:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hegvald ( talk) 12:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTCV. Hiltner probably passes WP:PROF (we don't have to decide that for this AfD) but for most academics we do not catalogue all non-book-length publications; a small set of selected publications suffices. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete The individual will clearly meet WP:PROF, and the editor has already made a usable draft as User:Mem272/sandbox. The draft will need some editing, but it's good enough for mainspace as it is. We do not include complete lists of publications, and the draft already includes selected publications, so there is no use for this version. Mem272, would you like me to move your userspace draft now and adjust it to our usual format? It will be quite easy for me--I've done this sort of rewriting for thousands of scientist bios. We do not include puffery like "one of her great achievements", and there's a rule WP:NOTCV, which we interpret it to mean that complete lists of publications are not acceptable unless the person is world-famous--see WP:EINSTEIN. For the article to stay in WP, you'll need to accept our practices. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment Hiltner herself passes WP:PROF#C5 for holding a named chair (the Herbert Henry Dow professorship [1]), and her citation record meets WP:PROF#C1, it looks to me. But as David Eppstein says, we generally don't catalogue all the articles that a researcher has published. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment I know that there are not generally publication lists (which is odd, as said above since we do it for actors with film credits and other similar lists). The list I published was certainly not a full list of publications, as she has over 300. However, I would like assistance in determining which publications should be included. In my sandbox page on Anne Hiltner, I have a list of just some publications for which she was the primary author and also the full list from this second page in case it got deleted. I am a new user and would appreciate help to make her main page a decent entry. I am fine with this page being deleted since it does not fit guidelines. mem272 ( talk) 22:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
This is an encyclopedia, intended for the general public. It's not a database of journal articles, though the allied project Wikidata may possibly be developing one). It's not a collection of CVs. It's not a department web site with all the faculty showing off their latest work to compete for the best graduate students. It's not a scientific memorial article. It's not a celebration of a person's career. It gives the information someone in the general public who has heard his name might like to do, which is to find out what he is particularly known for.

There are no fixed rules, but there are standard practices. . When I write or revise a scientific bio I include all the published books, and the 5 ± 2 most influential papers. Sometimes there's a good third party source for that, but almost always we need to use the standard surrogate for influential, most highly cited. Often there's an appropriate way to mention a few more, such as if one of is cited in a major award of international standing.

We don't expect new authors to get everything right, and nobody OWNs a article, which is why after you've finished, anyone can edit, and a number of people generally do so.

Other fields vary. For academics in the humanities, we normally just include the books. For literary authors, it depends on their importance, but we sometimes do try to include all the published works, depending on importance and genre. For filmographies, we do include all films. For discographies, we are often extensive, but not usually truly complete.

Some articles here do not follow the rules. Back 10 years ago, lots of things were done that are now unacceptable, and it will take a very long time to fix them. Sometimes a fan group insist onf writing in violation of the usual practice, and if there are enough of then, sometimes people here let them rather than fight with devout fans. Nobody can actually enforce a rule about content, so odd things happen. The only fair advice Ic an give, is to follow the mainstream. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 9 April 2018 (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.