Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genealogy of Theoretical Physicists

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 of the debate was Keep. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogy of Theoretical Physicists[edit]

Seriously original research. howch e ng {chat} 23:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, too bad it can't be speedied -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I (the initial uploader) would not say it is "original research that creates primary sources". The information in the page is extracted from the references at the end of the page, SPIRES and other sources. It is "source-based research", as defined in the wikipedia policies and guidelines. The fact it is hard or time consuming to collect (it was) does not make it a primary source. I agree it does not seem very "enciclopedic" in style, but that is a matter of edition. ¿Perhaps to supress the initial parragraph? Arivero 09:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Cleanup The idea of tracking the development of a profession or field (who mentored whom) has the potential to be very interesting to other people who are interested in the history of the field. (Like charting all the different bands that member of "Yes" have been in.) It's not original research IMHO but a particular way of categorizing a field. (You could perform the same function by creating WP categories "Trained with Max Planck", "Trained with Pauli" and so on.) On the other hand, the format is not very user friendly. Can WP accomodate a graphical chart form with hotlinks? Alternatively the author may want to try some alternative text display schemes used by genealogists.Thatcher131 16:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As per above. This entry is not only fascinating, but useful too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gretnagod (talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. This kind is more a collation and rearrangement of info from primary sources than actually original research in the WP sense. Useful and interesting.--ragesoss 19:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and Keep. Some scientists do actually keep track of this kind of stuff (my own sister traces herself back to Bohr), and having it all together in Wikipedia is useful and interesting. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK it's interesting, but what is your source? Who decides the genealogy tree? If it's one or a group of Wikipedia editors, then it's original research. Show sources that say that so-and-so was mentored/influenced by so-and-so or that already has such a tree. If one doesn't already exist, it would be better to have an article about scientific genealogies in the first place. howch e ng {chat} 22:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's in bad shape as it is, but it's a simple enough matter of record who was whose PhD advisor, which defines the genealogy. Once of the sources is spires [1] but there are others. –Joke 03:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps the introduction, the methodology and sources could be moved to an entry on scientific genealogy, I can do it next week. They are good enough sources for chemistry, mathematics and some branchs of physics. I am told by humanity colleagues that it is not possible to do the same thing in philosophy (no oficial advisors), so scientific seems the right term. arivero

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.