Talk:Stanley Aronowitz bibliography

Articles list needed

Stanley published over 200 articles, apparently. These need to be added as well as his edited volumes. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have added all of the edited volumes that Stanley is explicitly associated with; however, I have not added works like Root and Branch volumes, where he edited the collection but wasn't named explicitly. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Editor Positions

Stanley has edited a number of journals during his career. A new section should be created with a block of written text as opposed to a list detailing the journals he served on the editorial board for, as well as for how long he served. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Distinguishing between magazine and academic journal articles

Stanley's scholarly career has had him writing for popular and academic audiences; subsequently, the venues he chose for publishing are at times a mix of these two. Social Policy (magazine) is one example, where Wikipedia characterizes this as a magazine (likely because it is lacking peer-review), but it's indexed in ProQuest and EBSCO databases. Social Text is another (lacks peer-review but often considered a journal). There may be an interest in distinguishing the Social Policy articles from the scholarly ones where a new list should be generated.Joeyvandernaald (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion June 2017

I have chosen to invoke the option of removing the proposed deletion tag on this article, as I object to its deletion on the grounds that I find the reasons for proposed deletion inadequate. User Randykitty wrote that "WP is not for posting lists of publications except of the most notable people." First, this appears to be on the surface demonstrably false. Wikipedia features numerous list-class articles featuring publications which belong to no notable person whatsoever. For example, the Bibliography of fly fishing is not by any one notable person and yet it is a list-class article of note. Second, if the contention is in regards to notability, the grounds for notability of stand-alone lists should be assessed based on the set of qualifications set out for them, not on the person who the list is about if the person has their own Wikipedia article. Deletion on these grounds begs the question of whether or not Stanley is a notable person. Stanley in fact has his own Wikipedia article, whose notability has not been challenged; so to assert that the present article should be deleted because Stanley is not a notable person is incorrect. Randykitty has written as well that "A short bibliography (with, say, 5 entries) with the most important selected works (as substantiated by independent sources) can be included in the article on this academic." I would encourage Randykitty to examine the Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies section on Author bibliographies, which lays out guidelines for what is appropriate for author bibliographies. The guidelines state, "the author should be notable and have a Wikipedia article. If there are fewer than 10 works attributable to the author, they should be included in a bibliography or list of works section within the main article." So if one agrees that Stanley is a notable author, which, by virtue of his having an uncontested Wikipedia page, one can argue that he is, and because Stanley has more than 10 works (according to biographies written about him, he has more than 200), a separate bibliography can reasonably be created for him. Further, while Randykitty argues, "all academics publish, but we don't need a completely list of publications for every one of them" my rebuttal would be that not all academics have as a unique and voluminous a publication history as Stanley. If one looks at the present article as it exists so far, one can see that Stanley has published in both the academic and popular press, as well as written and edited numerous books. Yes, all academics publish, but Stanley's output in breadth and depth is exceptional by most any academics' standards, which is why the present article was created. Last. one need not look very far to find other academics and minor authors with bibliographies on Wikipedia whose standing in the scientific community (to take the example that Randykitty has raised) is lesser than Albert Einstein. One example is Slavoj Zizek bibliography, which actually fails to conform to the standards laid out by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies more so than the present article. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)