Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major discoveries

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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 04:38Z

Major discoveries[edit]

I really don't know what to make of this. Firstly, the page title (Major discoveries) is not what the page is about, as is made quite clear in the introductory sentence: it's meant to be a list of people who have made tow or more discoveries. Secondly, no definition is given of 'major discovery' leaving it so vage as to be useless. Thirdly, no edit has ben made since the page was created on 17 November 2006 (and what's there is not exactly meaningful). Fourthly, I do not see how this can properly develop into a useful page beyond the trivial. Emeraude 12:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The stated aim of the article "List of people who have made major discoveries in two or more fields (archaeology, literature, science, mathematics, etc.) or multiple discoveries in one field." might be worth an article. However:-
- The title of the article does not suggest that it is about people who have made multiple major discoveries
- There is a problem deciding what counts as a "major discovery".
- In fact the article is not about this at all but discusses mostly underwater archeology.
- The creator of the article appears to be the Dr Spence referred to in the article and therefore it appears to be a vanity article. His claims to fame are unverified.Jules1975 12:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Jules1975 StuartDouglas 14:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks focus and inherently forces itself to violate neutral point of view by defining a "major discovery". Leebo⁸⁶ 14:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jules1975. A list of individuals who have made discoveries in particular fields would be more encyclopedic. -- Black Falcon 02:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's wrong with this article is larger than what's right. The name doesn't match the content. Someone's POV has to define what discoveries are major and whether the fields are sufficiently distinct to merit inclusion. Also, what do people who do make "major" discoveries in two "different fields" notable as a group? It seems trivial and subject to all sorts of interpretations: Hitler discovered that you could stage all sorts of monumental parades and get people all hyped up (Psychology), he also discovered that Stalin and the Red Army were tougher than anyone thought (Military Science). Carlossuarez46 00:59, 5 March 2007 (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.