This is up for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications in biology - and is being confused with List of scientific journals in biology. --Bduke 01:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of publications in law, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications in law. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --WJBscribe 03:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC) WJBscribe 03:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
There has been a lot going on with the Science Pearls articles over the last year - 3 goes at AfD with no consensus and the change of title to add "important" after one of the AfDs (since reverted for the Philosophy one). I have tried to get people to tighten the criteria but with little result, except for chemistry (my own subject). Many articles are a mess. Let me know if I can do anything to bring you up to speed. --Bduke 11:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the warm welcome. I'm afraid that I'm not back to activity yet. I have being too busy outside of wikipedia and I will probably stay busy for a while.
OK, but you do not have e-mail enabled. Please enable it. --Bduke 11:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, there will be a problem appearing before lone in the philosophy area now that publications need to be 'important' to be in the that category. In the other sciences there is a greater degree of agreement on things. Philosophy is full of contention. People will start deleting those they don't like and claiming they aren't "important" enough. There is a WP guideline somewhere, I don't remember where, that warns against using words like this in titles because they bring about edit wars and can't be resolved by attaining sources (the words are too subjective). There was a List of Major Philosophers and "major" had the same effect - finally the list was deleted. I wanted you to know why you should revert the 'important' - please remember that 'notable' already is policy. Steve 17:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Let discuss the name here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science_pearls#A_title_for_the_list_and_categories. APH 08:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Category:Important publication in mathematics. It covers the others too. The proposal is to rename to "Category:Important publications in mathematics", but a couple of comments say that it should be renamed to "Category:Mathematics publications" as "important" is against policy. --Bduke 04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You recently categorized the article on the excellent book Winning Ways under this heading. Shouldn't it be combinatorial game theory instead? (See game theory). Leon math 01:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
It should be "Category:Important publications in game theory", notice the plural in "publications". Same for all other categories you created. It should be quite a lot of work on your part to go back and fix all that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I agree that we should rename the catgories. Can we use the bot for that? APH 07:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi APH! I'm just curious, how is David Patterson doing these recommendations? Is this private communication to you, or is are they public records somewhere? Thanks :-) -SpuriousQ (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
...is now at User:APH/List of publications in philosophy. Standard cautions against reusing it in article space apply. Splash - tk 12:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Please look at the talk page and give your views on a proposal to make that Project a Task Force of a new Project on Academic Journals. --Bduke 04:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I have nominated List of important publications in statistics, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in statistics. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? —G716 <T·C> 04:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of important publications in biology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on List of important publications in biology, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Crusio (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of important publications in chemistry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in chemistry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. StAnselm (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls/List of publications in philosophy. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls/List of publications in philosophy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of psychology until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Liz Read! Talk! 17:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
The article List of important publications in economics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated))
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated))
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in geology (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)