Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of women innovators and inventors by country

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 keep. ✗plicit 23:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of women innovators and inventors by country[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Basically the exact same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of women inventors. This isn't an article, it doesn't tell the reader anything they couldn't figure out from Category:Women inventors and Category:Women innovators. It also seems very, very lopsided, with dozens of Aerican names and only three Chinese names. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another “X by irrelevant Y and nothing else” list, which should probably be banned across the board as unencyclopedic WP:NOTINFO cruft. Dronebogus (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete Although it's gained some more entries since it was nominated, it feels like a duplicate of categories more than anything. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I can see the point of deleting the other, much broader list (List of women inventors), I would argue that the List of women innovators and inventors by country does add value for users searching for information about women inventors geographically. It also provides short summaries of each woman's era and type of invention, which would take longer to find when searching through category pages. The nominator's point about too many American entries and not enough other nationalities is a better argument for improvement than deletion. Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the criteria for inclusion on this list? Just already being an inventor with a Wikipedia page? I agree WP:DINC though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument that readers are well served by categories is false, because categories don't Google, and appear rarely used by readers as in general they get very limited traffic. They present the subject in a very unreader-friendly fashion. In particular, in this case, the categories are not divided by country; if one is looking for, say, German women who were inventors, there's no way of finding them from the categories. We, properly, have very large numbers of lists where categories exist, which enable readers to see the subjects in context (chronology, geography, &c). The bias towards inclusion of Americans is in no way a rationale for deletion, but for improvement. Google reveals a wealth of sources for such material; there is certainly significant coverage. ETA A smattering of web/news content in addition to the material mentioned below: [1],[2],[3],[4],[5] Espresso Addict (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. “X by irrelevant Y and nothing else” lists serve the user very well. There are many of them, and they are to be encouraged. The broad subject is reflected in publications such as Creese, Mary R. S.; Creese, Thomas M. (2004). Ladies in the Laboratory II: West European Women in Science, 1800-1900 : a Survey of Their Contributions to Research. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810849792., which is to say that women by innovations, inventions, contributions, is a WP:N notable subject. WP:NOTINFO does not fit here: we are not discussing "an indiscriminate collection of information". And as others have said, deletion is not cleanup. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant coverage of the notable group or set per WP:LISTN, due to secondary sources that could also help develop the contextual presentation in the article, e.g. Mothers and Daughters of Invention: Notes for a Revised History of Technology (1995, e.g. "Stanley traces women's inventions in five vital areas of technology worldwide"), Feminine Ingenuity: Women and Invention in America (2010), Female Innovators at Work: Women on Top of Tech (2016, e.g. "female innovators and entrepreneurs in the still largely male-dominated tech-world"), Wonder Women: 25 Innovators, Inventors, and Trailblazers Who Changed History (2016), Women in Science: Fearless Pioneers Who Changed the World (2021, e.g. "The collection includes diverse women across various scientific fields, time periods, and geographic locations."), Gender, Diversity and Innovation: Concepts, Policies and Practice (2022, e.g. "with a central focus on the experiences of women innovators, exploring different geographic and institutional contexts"), Female Innovators Who Changed Our World: How Women Shaped STEM (2022, e.g. "the lives of 46 women, taking you into the cultural and social context of the world they lived in."). Beccaynr (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:LISTN as Beccaynr had said. Fade258 (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid information and navigational list. You can't delete a list because you prefer categories. If its notable for one, its notable for the other. A list allows far more information to be presented than a category does, so far more useful. Dream Focus 10:14, 9 May 2022 (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.