Talk:Randall James Bayer

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 August 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about a botanist or someone who contributed to the field of botany.

Publications list

The journal list is not necessary - it is available externally (and a link provided) and they are not normally included in academic biography articles as they are simply too long.--Peta 01:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the information is available externally. Including the list makes the article too mcuh like a CV, and I would like to see it removed.--Peta 04:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article, submitted for AfD is not currently about what is "necessary", but rather what is "required" to pass notability guidelines. Without the complete list of publications the claim was made that he was not notable, but typical. Therefore the complete list is absolutely necessary until such time as the AfD is closed. Unless you have a way to magically teach all voters to read every cited link.Wjhonson 04:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is rubbish, the afd is not going to fail - the article will be kept. If anything including the giant list of articles makes this article look like a vainity article. Book chapers should make it obvious that this guy is well recognised in his field wihout the list of 100+ papers. --Peta 04:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your position is not well-attested in the voting history. The link has been there since prior to the posting and *yet* people were still claiming he was not notable. As an admin, why don't you close the Afd? After that, I would have no problem with you removing the list of articles. Wjhonson 04:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason people are voting for deletion is because the subject submitted it, which is in part why I removed the list of pubs - although they weren't added by the author, make the article look like a CV, which could be detrimental to the afd. I can't just remove it from afd, since once the process has started it has to run the 7 days.--Peta 04:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your suggestion that people might vote *against* because he has too *many* publications posted makes no sense. On the other hand you could be patient a few more days and let the AfD conclude. Wjhonson 04:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No the voter mentality makes no sense. If someone wants to reproduce their CV, which is what the list looks like - then they should get a webpage. Thus people will vote to delete because the page look likes vainity. A wikipedia article should look like a wikipedia article and it is not customary to include large publications lists in scientist articles.--Peta 04:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However that is not what the list actually is. As you should well know. And the page has several editors, so obviously is not *vanity*. And I don't see anything stating what is customary except perhaps in your opinion. Wjhonson 04:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it were customary to include a list of publications, you would see it in other articles. If you are putting them here for the AfD discussion, and then removing the after, then that is misleading. There are links to external sites on the AfD discussion, and therefore this is not neccesary. I also agree with Peta, it makes the article look much more like vanity than if the papers were not there. --liquidGhoul 11:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed Peta removing the journal articles while leaving the book chapters. Wouldn't the reasonable solution be to list the 8-10 most cited articles/chapters or something like that? (These are presumably the ones most likely to be cited in Wikipedia as well, if we cited things as well as we should.) up+l+and 05:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]