Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in geology

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. While this has not been closed in over a week, I don't think any further discussion will change the rough consensus given. –MuZemike 05:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in geology[edit]

List of important publications in geology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

cf: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in sociology and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology; search revealed no compilation of important works in this field Curb Chain (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfDs (four previous, six current):
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Here is one possible source: Preston Cloud (1970). Adventures in Earth History. W. H. Freeman. ISBN 978-0716702528. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Another (pair): Kirtley F. Mather and Shirley L. Mason, ed. (1939, 1967). A Source Book In Geology, 1400-1900. Source Books in the History of the Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674-82277-3. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) and Kirtley F. Mather, ed. (1967). Source Book in Geology, 1900-1950. Source Books in the History of the Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. p. 435.. I have these in my posession if anyone wants any particular information from them. LadyofShalott 21:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general question: What constitutes research? Lists of scientists are, by implication, lists of important scientists, the main criterion often being that someone found them worthy of writing a WP article about them. (Is it research to track down the WP articles? Or if they are obtained from a category, was it research to put articles in the category?) Could a publication be considered important if it is described as such (with appropriate reference) in a WP article? RockMagnetist (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is fair to require that each addition to the list provide a citation for importance. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed - and it should certainly be possible to do - there are WP:RS that state that, for example, "the world-wide influence of [Lyell's] treatises and textbooks definitely established the principle of uniformitarianism" (Mather and Mason, p. 263). LadyofShalott 22:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 22:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have had a serious look at the Sourcebook you mentioned and I still have concerns. (we are talking about ISBN 9780674822757 right?) It does not discuss the works, it is only a collection of others authors works, by a single editor. I can find no comments by the editor on why she selected the works she did, nor comments about the works themselves. Any monkey can glue a few books together without saying anything about the selected works. (ps your isbn # is a bit wonky, at least on my end). Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about mixing up DOI with ISBN (I have been citing a lot of articles recently). Have you looked at the introductions to each section? I am not claiming this is the best possible source - it's just what I had on my bookshelf. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Np about the DOI ;) I did look at several, to me they gave a good precis of the persons life, but no meat about the stuff we are interested in, sorry. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 06:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comments about the selections are brief, but Mather and Mason do say something about why each of the selections is important. It's stating the obvious, but clearly Harvard University Press thought it was a notable topic. As for the "single editor" comment - for the first volume, it is two editors with doctorates in the subject; both volumes were done under the guidance of the series editor, Edward H. Madden, and (as already said) published by Harvard U. Press - that is hardly equivalent to one Wikipedia editor, which seems to have been the level of comparison you were making. LadyofShalott 08:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, its not. WP:LISTN "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been. See my cmt. above. LadyofShalott 00:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And note the statement from the same link WP:LISTN: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." RockMagnetist (talk)
  • While we're on the subject of policy, how about the list in WP:FAILN of actions that should be tried before nominating a list for deletion? RockMagnetist (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • MASSIVE EC's- Then, IMHO, it was done contrary to accepted consensus and guidelines. Just because something was done, does not mean it should remain in that same state forevermore. Just as prior AfD's moved these Articles to their current name, it is still not right. We should continue to evolve, correct errors, Cite & remove Editor opinions from Articles. (yup, the grouping or set has not been Cited.) Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 01:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, I question whether "no compilation of important works in this field" is a reason for deletion. Lists are for listing notable things. They need sources to say they are notable, and I submit that if there is an article on a thing, that demonstrates that it is notable. Second, I fail to see that this is OR, if the items are found to be notable. Of course it will not include all notable publications, but most WP articles are a work in progress. Third, there has been discussing about the name over many years. Should "important" be in the title or not? Should "notable" be in the title or not? "Important" was actually added after an earlier AfD discussion. I would prefer it was not there, but I suggest this is a matter for another discussion. Names can be changed. They are not an argument to delete an article. This list and all the others needs improving by better sourcing and deletion of items that can not be sourced. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whom says what is 'Important' (and by implication 'Unimportant'). Unless there are multiple reliable Secondary sources verifying the list, it is pure POV and OR. I am not going to repeat myself Ad infinitum, all my reasoning is in the prior List of important <stuff> AfD. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have notified User:Sandstein and User:King of Hearts (the closing editors for the sociology and biology discussions) and Wikipedia: WikiProject Lists of this discussion. Jowa fan (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a line in Template:List of publications intro requiring that citations be provided for the importance of each publication. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a clear encyclopedic topic. There may be an unclear boundary between important and unimportant. But bibliographies are worth having. If such article were deleted for other major scientific disciplines it is time to bring them back. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there have been other articles deleted, including the ones I mentioned above and articles such as List of publications in law and ones I have not nominated as references were already in the article which showed to me that 2rd parties had registered lists of notable works in [insert science here].Curb Chain (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a good way of doing it[edit]

I had a look at the discussion leading to the removal of the biology list in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology, and I was not impressed by the way it was handled. The opinions for and against deletion being roughly balanced, I would think that the appropriate action would be to give the contributors more time to fix the problems. Apparently BDuke labored mightily to address the issues, but because of the rules of this procedure he had only seven days in which to do it. At the end of that time, an administrator who apparently had no previous role in the page or the discussion waltzed in and made the cut.

Frankly, I don't really have a strong opinion about whether we need lists of important publications. But I don't like this procedure. People have put some effort into creating these lists, and their efforts should be respected. The suggestions in WP:FAILN seem reasonable - why not start by putting a notability tag on the page? And instead of going from list to list, picking them off one by one, why not start a discussion in an appropriate forum to decide what would constitute notability for a list of this kind? RockMagnetist (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do respect the effort that many people have put into these lists. Please do not misunderstand that point. However, IMO, I fear BDuke missed the point we were trying to make ( but that the Closer did catch on to). The mere fact of having a list of "Important stuff" opens up the possibility of a List of "Unimportant stuff" as well. Unless there is a clear Cite for the items on either such lists, there will always be a conflict of Opinions on what belongs where, even between learned & respected representatives of the fields of study in question. What happens to topics that become out of fashion, do they get to be on both lists, or neither list? As far as I am aware, Wikipedia is meant to remain neutral and to explain the Topics, not to decide on what is, or is not, important. If a group of people decide that something is "important", it should say so in the Article about that topic. That "importance" should not be used as the basis for creating a separation of the information. Lists are meant to simply be a different way to Reach information. List everything the 'pedia has, or don't bother with a list at all. You suggest a discussion to decide notability for a list of this kind, but we are asking, What does "Important" mean? To each and every person it is different and an elusively subjective term, changing with each persons own experience. It is not a straight line that can be drawn. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 06:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with RockMagnetist about the need for a wider discussion. Let us not get too focused on the "important" in the title. In hindsight, it was a mistake that an earlier AfD suggested adding "important". Other lists, following the manuals of style, are titled just "List of X". That is how this list should be titled and how it used to be titled. We only have articles on important (i.e notable) things. We do not have articles on unimportant things. That distinction is a red-herring. With "List of X", it assumes that the criteria is that the entries on the list are notable. I still think that is the key criteria. The suggestion that the topic of the list itself has to have a source showing it is notable could I suggest lead to deleting almost all lists on wikipedia. That is why I support a wider discussion. However scientific publications are clearly notable. There is an article on Scientific literature to which Scientific publication is a redirect. Geology publication is just a sub-class of that. I think notability is clear for these lists. We have not however always done a good job with them. We need to do better, but there is nothing to stop us. I guess I really am not understanding the objections to these lists and having worked on them for several years, I find the attack on them both odd and misplaced. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so you want the list to just list articles that we have? That's already done by categories.Curb Chain (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not want to just list articles that we have. I think we should have items on the list that meet one of the following criteria - (1) there is an article on them, (2) there is an article on something else, maybe the author, that has a significant section on them, that might in future be forked out to give an article on the publication, or (3) there are reliable external sources cited that show the notability of the publication and a redlink there might point to a future WP article. These should also be guided by the reasons given in the included template at the top of the list, which interestingly nobody has commented on in this or the other discussions. On categories, I have been here long enough to see deletion proposals for lists because they should be categories, and then later deletion proposals on the category on the grounds that they should be a list. I would also like each entry to briefly describe the publication and inform the reader why the publication is important/notable. Categories do not do this. User:LadyofShalott below is also correct. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that address who determines what gets included, weather it is a category or list. With the current criteria, it says that it can be influential (who determines this without a source), breakthrough (who determines this without a source), OR "Topic creator" (but that doesn't make it important, notable (per se), or significant).Curb Chain (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the same way - there is a long standing concensus that lists and categories are can and often should coexist. The list has information about the works that a category is not able to provide. LadyofShalott 08:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the minimum being that lists can show refs, categories can not.Curb Chain (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if anyone wants to keep working on List of important publications in biology we could userfy it for the person to work on or put it into the article incubator. I can assist anyone who wants to improve on those deleted lists. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one kind of the lists a curious reader of an encyclopedia would be interested in in furthering his understanding and knowledge on a particular subject. That we don't have another source (or more) giving exactly the same list that we are going to compile is not only a reason of avoiding copyright infringement but also the intricate matter of compiling survey texts: as long as material is notable it should be mentioned, under consideration of adhering to a NPOV. What this article needs is nothing but a precise inclusion criterion and reliable secondary sources for each entry stating its particularly notability. Cleanup is also no criterion for deletion. Nageh (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


And the argument seems to be the same everywhere, that being the word "important" being used. Dream Focus 09:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way we can suggest that this contributor be blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia for whatever reasons we can trump up? I for one would dance on his bones. --Matt Westwood 12:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep it civil, WestwoodMatt. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm finding it difficult.--Matt Westwood 20:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You made a personal attack against me, based on me informing people of similar discussions? I don't recall ever interacting with you before. Dream Focus 23:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No no no, not against you, against the person who set up all these despicable delete requests. You're all right. Sorry, when I said "this contributor" I meant the person you were responding to. Apologies for the misunderstanding. --Matt Westwood 05:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per LadyOfShallot. As long as we WP:ASF and use sources, there is no original research and no issue with the inclusion criterion being subjective. The topic of the article strikes me as eminently appropriate for an encyclopedia. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator's (implicit) rationale for deletion – no sources exist that define which publications are "important" and which are not – is unreasonable. What it boils down to is: "There is no reliable source proclaiming, The following are the important publications in [insert name of scientific field]: 1. ... 2. ... 3. ...; therefore it is original research and must be deleted." (And if such a source existed, the article would instead be speedily deleted as a copyvio – you can't win.) This is not a reasonable deletion rationale because it applies to basically any "List of ..." article. For example, for List of magazines in Pakistan, where is the reliable source that states: The following are the notable magazines in Pakistan: ...? A rationale that applies to essentially all stand-alone list articles is obviously too broad; if you wish to see this list deleted, a rationale must be presented that is somewhat specific to this list, and not so general that it applies generically to all list articles.  --Lambiam 14:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article should cite authoritative published sources saying the listed works are important in the field. But it is enough to have one or more authoritative published sources for each listed item separately. It is unreasonable to require a single source that gives the whole list. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the same argument was used in list of important publications in biology, but that got deleted. In my opinion Grey's Anatomy is an influential book, or that being descriptive and comprehensive for its time, all being reasons to make it an important book, or more importantly regardless of the title of the article, inclusion into it.Curb Chain (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say that second sentence again in a way that makes sense? It's fairly incomprehensible as it is. LadyofShalott 19:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion Grey's Anatomy is an influential book, or that Grey's Anatomy was descriptive and comprehensive for its time; these are all reasons to make it an important book. Regardless of the title of the article does this merit inclusion into list of important publications in biology?Curb Chain (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it certainly does, and the fact that the Biology list fell victim to deletionists is seriously unfortunate. What's your point? --Matt Westwood 16:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're just going to say yes it does with out explaining the reason(s)? What makes other Medical textbooks I don't know about any less important?Curb Chain (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is most definitely not unreasonable to ask for Cites for any Article/List. If the List of important operas can find 9 reliable WP:Secondary sources discussing the "group or set" as WP:LISTN requires, then I don't think it is too much to ask for 1 for this Topic. Discussion of the "group or set" is important, because that gives WP:Notability to this entire Topic. A WP:Reliable source discussing only 1 Individual item only lends WP:N to the article about that topic (individual Articles of each subject, not collectively). If even 1 Cite cannot be found talking about this topic/"group or set", then I would go further and say that WP:GNG has not been met for this Lists existence, and everything we are looking in this List is POV/OR. If there is no Cites, then the Article shouldn't exist. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 17:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Curb Chain: please tell us SPECIFICALLY and IN DETAIL what your alleged search consisted of, and do it fast. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am seeing a lot of general arguments about the criteria for notability, very few arguments that are specific to this page. The general themes I am seeing are:
  1. What are the notability criteria for lists of important publications? Can they be determined from WP:LISTN alone, along with the general requirement to cite your sources? Or do we need to incorporate criteria from Wikipedia:Notability (books)? Or is there something else beyond these requirements?
  2. Can the requirements be met by such a list—at least in principle? (If they cannot, then how about other kinds of lists?)
  3. Do they have to be met the moment the list is created? (Keep in mind that lists don't spring fully formed from the head of a single editor, so they are always going to be heading towards completeness.)
If this were the law courts, a decision could be made at this level and then appealed to a higher court. I think an administrator should make a similar decision here: decide in favor or against the article, but leave it in place until the general issues are decided. Maybe a page WP:Notability (lists of publications) should be developed. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Comment
  1. The Criteria for "the Notability of a List" is determined by the Cited sources. If multiple reliable sources talk about a Topic, Then WP can work with that Topic using them as a source.
  2. Sure they can, if you work from the Cites you have. Don't write an Article then go looking for Cites.
  3. yes. any Article/List without any Cites or claim to Notability is Speedy Delete material

Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 17:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of a claim of notability is a speedy deletion criterion. Lack of citations is not. LadyofShalott 17:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Similar arguments are being made on the other pages marked for deletion, often by the same people, putting a big burden on many editors and administrators (both pro and con). A possible alternative would be to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls and move the discussions there. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No! Do not do this! It is IMHO a worthless project and worthless timesink! It has become defunct and inactive for a long time! In anycase the premise of the project seems to have the same problems similar to these articles as they seem to be a local-consenus group synergized to create their-own lists of important topics.Curb Chain (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two alternatives are Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists and Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice discussion, Geometry guy. Do you have some thoughts on how to avoid fighting this battle over and over? RockMagnetist (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but there is no panacea (or, to joke a little, "you can lead a horse to the waters of reason, but you can't make it think"). I like to encourage intelligent discussion based on what Wikipedia is trying to achieve: policies and guidelines are intended to support that purpose, but are often used like soundbites to win an argument by authority or rhetoric. That's not helpful: whatever decisions we make, those who disagree with the decision need a clear explanation why, or at least to understand what the opposing argument actually is. You can't simply tell them "your argument was invalid per WP:NOR". Clear reasoned discussion helps more editors to understand the point of Wikipedia, and hence contribute more productively and effectively in the future. Geometry guy 23:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The requirements for inclusion are clearly listed at the top of the article. There are reliable sources confirming the information. Dream Focus 23:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, may main argument is here. --Pgallert (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment specifically to User:LadyofShalott but open to all - seeing as you are the only one to put forward any somewhat reasonable Cite discussing the "group or set", I am willing to change my stance if this List is trimmed down to ONLY the works discussed in your Sourcbook. I would point out List of important operas as an example of how a List like this can work (multiple reliable secondary sources, listing "Important" works). Individual Cites are irrelevant and pointless unless the Topic (being a List of...) can be called WP:Notable by supporting sources. Although I would prefer to see more than 1, as I still feel that only 1 constitutes an opinion or 'collection' of currently popular learning materials/textbooks. Compromise is possible, but it is going to need work to remove a lot of POV/OR. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 18:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is not a Notable enough topic to be spoken about by reliable secondary sources, then it would be OR for Wiki Editors to create it themselves and call it a List of Important <stuff>.
  • Indeed, just because the one I've presented is the only list of notable geology publications you like; it doesn't mean it's the only one there. It shows that the topic is notable, not that the items included in it are the only appropriate ones for such a list. (Also, I am willing to work on sourcing the list from my books, but it will be many hours before I am able to touch them again, and I may be too worn out from a long day to start that project then.) LadyofShalott 18:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael Hardy makes a very relevant comment about sources here. For Riemann and his paper, substitute Charles Lyell and Principles of Geology. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exit2DOS, your "compromise" is still pretty demanding, considering that the Keeps greatly outnumber the Deletes in this discussion. You seem to be taking it upon yourself to hold these pages to higher standards than WP:LISTN, which says "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." (sic) RockMagnetist (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • By all means, please inform me how asking for 1 Cite that would attest to where this List(aka "group or set") comes from, is holding it to a higher standard than LISTN asks for? It looks to me as that is what LISTN is asking for. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also asked us to delete all publications that are not in that particular reference. WP:LISTN does not require that.RockMagnetist (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some leeway is always allowed, but if only 3 of 60 things are Cited ... its a WP:Coatrack (esp. WP:BITR the section). Your treating this as a battle, its not. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 01:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say that the article needs improving, I totally agree with you. I only see it as a battle if you're trying to get the article deleted because that is an overreaction. CC should never have started this discussion without trying some of the Alternatives to deletion. You seem reasonable, so I'm hoping that you are willing to change your vote to weak keep and help us to improve the article. After all, those 3 citations are 3 more than the article had when this discussion started! RockMagnetist (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science pearls-related deletion discussions.
  • Comment: I have found links to the two references that LadyofShalott provided (see the list page). One allows the user to see the whole book, the other allows access to the TOC (which lists all the publications). RockMagnetist (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think everyone in this discussion wants Wikipedia pages to meet a high standard. It seems to me that there is potential for agreement on criteria for acceptable lists of publications, and these criteria are pretty much the same for all the lists. I invite everyone to visit the revamped Science pearls Wikiproject and discuss the criteria on the talk page. I would like to make a clear statement on the WikiProject page that could be used by all the lists. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Strongly agree with much of what LadyOfShallott and RockMagnetist have already said. There exist external, published lists of important publications in geology. Clearly these will all be incomplete/contradictory, as "importance" is subjective, even for experts. This does not invalidate the basic concept of the article. IMO, a single entry in any list of this type, or a number of individual sources saying in isolation "[publication X] is important because [Y]" is plenty support enough. If nonspecialist editors have reviewed this article and think the referencing is not clear (which it probably isn't), then that's a useful and helpful observation; let's sort it out. Substandard referencing in its current form is not adequate reason to delete the article. DanHobley (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...I think there's also a more subtle problem here. Exit2DOS makes reference (1805, 3 October '11) to "currently popular learning materials/textbooks" as a point of concern. This is pretty emphatically not what the article is trying to achieve. These references are to groundbreaking original work, or to definitive reference tomes. There should be no element of "fashion" in the importance criteria. We have made efforts to purge exactly this kind of thing already. DanHobley (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the Lady. The nominator seems not to have researched the issue very well. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory break[edit]

The same problems found in List of important publications in mathematics can be found here (cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics#Explanation break).

List of important publications in geology#Report on the Geology of the Henry Mountains uses the reference [1]. The sentence which it cites is :"In addition to its geomorphic significance, it is a description of the last major mountain range to be mapped by Europeans in the contiguous United States". This is in the "Description:" area of the work. I has not been shown what makes it important.

The inclusion criteria of this list states that inclusion into the list must be either:

  • Topic creator
  • Breakthrough, or
  • Influential

This work has failed all of this because the citation does not explain how it fits into any of these criteria.Curb Chain (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reason for challenging that particular entry, and should be dealt with in List of important publications in mathematics and its talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't think so. I am just illustrating the fact that these references may not even be appropriate for the topic of this article. Are every one of the references reliable and unequivocally prove that the list is notable and does it show that the word "important" is used or are Wikipedians interpreting the contents of the source determining if it can be used for inclusion into this list and other such lists?Curb Chain (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the so-called issues you raised there are non-issues. One says, essentially, that Cardano created the complex numbers (topic creator). The other "issue" was an HTML glitch that has since been corrected. But as Rock pointed out, it's better to stay on-topic.Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curb Chain, It is time you stopped mixing issues together. You started this AfD because you could not find references that discussed this list as a group. Now the list has those references, so it satisfies the Notability criteria for stand-alone lists. The requirement that a list have clear criteria for inclusion is in the the Manual of Style for Stand-alone lists, and therefore not grounds for deletion of the list. The requirement that a particular statement is cited is part of the verifiability requirement, and a failure to meet this requirement is only grounds for challenging and removing that particular entry.

You should only be discussing notability on this page. The rest should be discussed in the talk page for the list. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also be discussing the inclusion criteria and weather they invite WP:OR/WP:SYN, which it seems to be clearclearer and clearclearer that it does. The central point of these lists is the interpretation of important and the way we as editors include entries objectively according to the criteria set out. Note the purpose of these lists. What is it? Does it have any other purpose than to let Wikipedians decide the publications worthy of Wikipedia's inclusion?Curb Chain (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And do these policies specifically state the grounds for deletion of an article? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask such questions to make it seem like I don't know what am I talking about because you could ask these questions with any afd.Curb Chain (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try not to make this an adversarial issue. You're probably feeling on the defensive right now and there is the danger that your position could harden. But because of your deletion proposal, a lot of editors have been improving the lists. You could feel good about that, if you stopped trying to win the argument. What I'm asking is, do you really think that you still have grounds for deleting the lists, or could their shortcomings be addressed in a less drastic way? Even the Notability criteria for stand-alone lists consider deletion as a last resort. And what do you think of Mike Cline's suggestion? RockMagnetist (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to bibliography[edit]

  • Keep Rename to Bibliography of Geology. There are countless references to Bibliographies of Geology. The Encyclopedia of Geology alone ought to be proof enough that important works in geology have been listed and grouped. Bibliographies are permitted by WP:List. If a specific entry can't be sourced to a reliable bibliography then remove it, but killing the list is ill-concieved.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting idea (from someone who seems to have quite some experience with lists). Could you say a bit more about inclusion criteria? I would call the DOI system a reliable bibliography. Can a bibliography still have quality criteria? RockMagnetist (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my view it’s pretty simple. A bibliography is nothing more than a list of books or works related to a specific topic (can be broad or narrow). Thus step 1, notability requires that such a list (i.e. members of the list) has been discussed as a group by reliable secondary sources. If Topic X is notable and reliable sources on Topic X have bibliographies or further reading included within, then one can say that books (works) about Topic X have been discussed as a group. In other words a bibliography or a list of books on Topic X is deemed notable by our list notability guideline. Step 2 then is to determine which books actually make the list. My first test is the title and subject of the book. Is it directly related to Topic X? If not, it may not be appropriate even though it shows up in some bibliographies. The second test is this. If the book is listed in the bibliography or is clearly cited or called out as a reference on Topic X in a reliable source, then that book (work) meets the inclusion criteria. Ideally each entry in the Bibliography should be cited to a reliable source, but sometimes the title of the book speaks for itself. Would anyone doubt that Haines The Yellowstone Story (i.e. the two volume definitive history of the park) did not belong in Bibliography of Yellowstone National Park? Although in reality it can be sourced to multiple published bibliographies in reliable sources.
A comment about comments made about these types of lists that they could contain 1000s of entries. Indeed they could, and so what. Lists can be split into sub-lists to the extent needed to meet our article size, readability and searching standards. It’s done all the time. If there are 2500 important books on Chemistry that make the cut for a WP Bibliography of Chemistry, then there are 2500 in the list and sub-lists.
If I had the time and inclination, creating Bibliographies on almost any important topic would be easy. It just takes time. These lists under attack here are good starts. They just need a bit more attention.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a discussion linking to this at the WikiProject Science pearls site. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every single publication/work tangentially related to the topic would be included. How is this not WP:INDISCRIMINATE?Curb Chain (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thou doest jest I am sure. There are already 400+ Bibliographies in WP. Are you suggesting they should all be deleted because by their very nature a bibliography is indiscriminate. You are jumping perilously to a conclusion not supported by reality. Sum of all knowledge my boy, Sum of all knowledge. We have only scratched the surface. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion Mike asked me for comments about his suggestion . I do not think a complete bibliography of books in the field of medicine or anything else is encyclopedic, except for bibliographies of the works of a notable author. I think they fail NOT INDISCRIMINATE, and they are not of value to people who go to an encyclopedia , who are normally looking not for all possible information, but for the sort of selection of important information that is in an encyclopedia. There are appropriate places for such lists, particularly Open Library. Selected lists are another matter. We accept Additional Reading sections. They're not just accepted, they're a significant feature that should be added to every appropriate article substantial enough in coverage to make them reasonable. For example, at present the article Geology does not have such a section. What we should do, regardless of the results at this AfD, is write one, and similarly for the other topics here that might not have them. Whether or not the articles are deleted, the list of books in them would make a good start. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout guideline considers such sections a normal part of an article. In conformity to the usual method for breakout articles, I'd subsequently propose calling them Additional reading in geology (etc.). I do not see how anyone would find that objectionable, and breakout sections are strongly supported by the MOS also. Of course it would take judgment about what to include, but it's the same judgment and the same material for whether they are in a section or a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another approach. another approach occurs to me. Every title on this list, and probable a few thousand others in the field, would probably meet the notability requirements for a separate article. WP:BOOK requires only two substantial 3rd party reviews; particular scientific papers need only meet WP:GNG, and I think we could satisfy that for any which had substantial discussions about them in subsequently published work. Having done that, a list of the items is unquestionably justified.(Actually, I think those guidelines excessive broad, and would advocate being considerably more selective) I've been planning for some time to do this, beginning with the books in Choice "notable books of the year" and the ones in Guide to reference (formerly known as Guide to Reference Books); both have been used here as standards of notability. I'll probably start with biology, not geology, and, if we do not have articles on the authors, make them also. Working not to the very minimal standards some use for stub articles about things like rivers, but to my own standard for a short article, I should be able to do maybe 4 an hour. It would make a nice subproject. (The only reason I haven't done this earlier is I've been concentrating on rescuing other editor's articles, but I ought to return to my original intent when I came here and write some of my own.). DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So write articles what we don't have? I don't see how that will affect the outcome of this afd. And categories will list such articles.Curb Chain (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to List of notable publications in geology. Determining importance without is problematic. Notability we do every day here. --Kvng (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And how will we do that? Use the same system of local debates on their talk pages?Curb Chain (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether by that or other means is not relevant here. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We'd do it the same way we determine notability for every topic on Wikipedia. We do it all the time. LadyofShalott 13:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like where this is going. Agree again with Kvng et al. Only issue may be that the list becomes a bit discriminate, but let's address that if and when it becomes a problem. DanHobley (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doing this is kind of pointless. If a topic has an Article on WP, it is assumed it is WP:Notable. A renaming to this, would be technically the same as renaming it List of publications in geology. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, but WP convention is that "List of..." is a simple, unadorned list. This article's strength is that it is annotated and a summarising document. Hence the advantage of making a distinction? Also, a straight list could contain entries which aren't notable by WP standards (and/or simply lack entries) but still are publications in geology, whereas "notable" makes this distinction explicit. DanHobley (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*I think it's worth reiterating that the issue of renaming is common to all these AfDs. Many of the renaming suggestions are collected here. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fear your missing the point. it does not matter how well Cited individual entries in this list are. Somewhere in this, there needs to be a Cite from which the list is drawn from. Otherwise it is a list or what individual editors believe is important, not what a reliable Secondary source says is a List of important <stuff>. At its very most basic, this is a list of qualified <stuff>, Where is that list coming from?
  • Exit2Dos. Would you or would you not agree given these references [2] that books, journals and other references on the subject of Geology have been discussed as a group which is the notability requirement from WP:NOTESAL? --Mike Cline (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A point that nobody has mentioned is that the criteria for lists in WP:LISTN is relatively new. It was introduced only early this year and that is long after this list and all the other lists of publications were started. I for one was unaware of this change to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Note too that it is guideline, not policy. I suspect that all the editors who have been editing these lists were also unaware of the change. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of lists. I suggest that the discussion there by people who spend time on this guideline is more relaxed about the criteria for list inclusion than some of the editors here using WP:LISTN as an argument for deletion. It is so new that it does not yet apply to a very large number of lists. We should be educating editors about this criteria and perhaps opening up the discussion on WP:LIST to see if some modification of the criteria should be introduced. Editors should then be given time to improve lists rather than deleting them now. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Key sentences for our purposes (emphasis mine): "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. I think this resolves the original raised issue for this discussion, per the Lady's comment right up the top giving appropriate references. This also directly addresses the unsigned comment ("...missing the point...") immediately above - the topic is fine; the entries do not have to all be listed together, just (ideally) independently cited as "important". Further discussion of changing the name seems helpful for potentially improving the article, but not critical for the outcome of this deletion listing. DanHobley (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of influential works in geology[edit]

All of the reasons I have seen to delete basically boils down to objections about the word important. And yet, in reality, these articles are not about what is important but they are about what is influential. What is influential is easily verifiable with sources. TStein (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: An editor added <onlyinclude> tags to this AfD on 5 October 2011, which broke its transclusion on the daily AfD log. This AfD is therefore relisted to ensure that it is properly transcluded on the daily log for the required time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for this. I was trying to assemble arguments related to renaming articles in WIkipedia talk:WikiProject Science pearls, and didn't realize it would have side effects. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Colonel Warden. I have added it to the references. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:LISTN with multiple reliable sources discussing substantial subsets of this list. There is no requirement that a single source cover all of them. If this article simply copied such one source it would easily be a copyvio. The reason invoked for deletion is thus invalid, and I have little faith in the search abilities of the nominator who has posted identical reasons for deleting other similar lists, nominations which were closed as WP:SNOW keep. The talk about impossibility of an objective criteria that others have raised is solipsism. We include stuff in Wikipedia precisely because some author decide to write about it, whether he is "objective" (according to what standard?) or not. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_important_publications_in_geology&oldid=1138013571"