Deletion of List of scientific articles by Ted Kaptchuk

Comment: The scientific articles by Ted Kaptchuk are not a notable body of work.  can not be used to justify creating an article, only to justify removing content from an article that is too long. The new article must stand on its on merits, "a parent article happend to be too long" is not a reason to have an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Splitting (WP:SPLIT)

Comment: List class articles are clearly appropriate for Wikipedia as evidenced by such articles as List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein, a featured list article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists) makes it very clear that this sort of this in appropriate and very useful and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) establishes the specifics for the use of this list, which is religiously adhered to. Any claims that the creation of this article is in anything other than |good faith and for the betterment of Wikipedia is confusing, strange and a clear violation of assuming good faith
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: The creation of this new article appears to come out frustration with the way some guidelines are being applied, and was created to make a |point. The content of this article was originally in Ted Kaptchuk‎. After two other editors and I insisted this content was unnecessary, Basket of Puppies moved the questionable content to this new article. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#External_links reminds editors to "Avoid listing an excessive number of external links; Wikipedia is not a link repository" and Wikipedia:LINKFARM#LINK adds "excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." This content didn't belong in Ted Kaptchuk‎, and it doesn't belong in this new article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Ted Kaptchuk is no Albert Einstein. It's not clear that the primary subject is notable under ; certainly a spin-off article is not notable either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: The creation of this article was in no way to create a POINT but rather to resolve the issue of a lopsided article based upon a very long publication section. I hope you will |afford me the benefit of the doubt and not immediately react to article creation as a policy violation
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)