Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in theoretical computer science

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. v/r - T P 02:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in theoretical computer science

(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) 13:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly WP:OR. A list of notable computer science publications could be a valid article insofar as that would be a list those publications whose notability could be established WP:WTAF by articles presenting sources that either do or do not conform to WP:GNG. But "important" is completely subjective, calling for a list of WP:ILIKEIT publications. Msnicki (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of publications in theoretical computer science, omitting the subjective word "important" to avoid turning the list into WP:OR. Set the inclusion criteria as with other lists, namely, that all entries must be notable WP:N, notability being established by a blue link to an existing article. No redlinks. WP:WTAF Msnicki (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then suggest that the name be changed, not call for it to be deleted. For a while these lists were all named "List of X publications". I have a vague recollection that earlier "notable" was in the title. Later "Important" was added after a AfD discussion on the biology list, which lead to the article being kept with a name change. Then all the other lists of publications were renamed. Consensus seems to change from year to year. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I agree and have changed my !vote. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of publications. This is original research lacking objective inclusion criteria; remove the "importance" criteria, and we would be left with an article from which no topical publication could possibly be excluded, leading to a lengthy and WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Depending on how one construes things, WP:NOTLINK may also apply. At best, it could be split up and merged to Further Reading sections of more specific articles. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So why does List of bicycle brands and manufacturing companies exist? It looks like a directory to me. Every item has a wikipedia article. Now I know we should not argue that other stuff exists, but that list is specifically mentioned at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works also have examples that show that this list pf publications is not of the ordinary. I think you are arguing for the deletion of all lists on wikipedia.--Bduke (Discussion) 23:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'm okay with notability as an objective criterion; the issue is that this article isn't using one at all. Lists of works are typically more circumscribed, being constrained to works by or featuring a particular author/artist/etc.; they are basically valid spin-offs of an author/actor/etc.'s article. In contrast, an entire field, without further constraints, seems too broad. Wikipedia isn't a card catalog (that'd be WorldCat). --Cybercobra (talk) 03:17, 2 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} 00:00, 2 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) 00:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Sister AfDs For ease of cross-referencing (this really ought to have been a single grouped nomination): WP:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security, WP:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing --Cybercobra (talk) 03:21, 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]

Keep because it should never have been nominated for deletion. --Matt Westwood 12:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are six related articles like this opened right now, with the same rational being repeated on them all.
List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing
List of important publications in geology
List of important publications in mathematics
List of important publications in medicine
List of important publications in networks and security
List of important publications in theoretical computer science

And the argument seems to be the same everywhere, that being the word "important" being used. Dream Focus 09:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't find the arguments from general principles (WP:V/WP:OR) above compelling. The question is, can this list in principle be referenced in a way that meets our core principles? I have no doubt that it can (see my arguments at here, mutatis mutandis). Certainly nothing that the delete !votes have said to this point in the AfD argues against the impossibility of finding such sources. (Lacking objectivity? We have plenty of subjective information in the encyclopedia. We just WP:ASF and use sources. I see no reason that wouldn't work here.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to find a Source of what is "important" because whats "important" to you, is probably not "important" to someone in Latvia. Important is an Opinion, and the 'pedia is supposed to based on reliable Secondary sources. Feel free to point one out to us that we could use as a Cite for what is "important". Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:31, 3 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]
- I disagree that deriving a list from a reliable source would necessarily be a copyvio. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that there is no List of important magazines in Pakistan speaks volumes. It is original reasearch for any WP Editor to decide what is (and by implication) is not important. WP:LISTN is specific on the issue if the Cite needed, the source must "discuss the group or set". We must draw the list in from a reliable secondary source, we cannot create it ourselves. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 20:28, 3 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) 16:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is that it includes no such citations, whether individual or collective. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:03, 2 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 at least 1 WP:Verifiable Cite 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 within the Topic, 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} 20:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep up to providing sourcing and per extensive comments by Geometry guy. Geometry guy 23:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasons for inclusion are clearly presented at the top of the list article. If you have a doubt about any item listed, discuss it on the talk page. There are reliable sources already found to prove this is notable. No sense repeating everything said in the many places this same debate is going on at. Dream Focus 23:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where???? There is a single Cite for the entire Article, and that is even behind a paywall. It is a complete and utter Opinion piece. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, may main argument is here. --Pgallert (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geometry guy. Useful, encyclopedic and can be adequately sourced. —Ruud 08:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science pearls-related deletion discussions.

Weak keep, for the same reasons stated by Geometry guy. The editors have not yet provided a source for the list as a group. To quote Jerry Maguire, "Help me to help you!" The link to the Gödel Prize in the See also section could be elevated to a reference and used to justify some of the entries. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:19, 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) 00:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep against this drive-by nomination. Sławomir Biały gives good reasons above, but this is almost a procedural issue: no issues specific to this topic seem to have been brought. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Bibliography of Theoretical Computer Science. Lots of sources have listed (grouped) books related to Theoretical Computer Science. See Bibliographies of Theoretical Computer Science. Clearly meets WP:List criteria for notability of lists. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a discussion on this at the WikiProject Science pearls site. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of notable publications in theoretical computer science --Kvng (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is kind of pointless: If an Article/List is on WP, it is assumed that it is WP:Notable. Doing so would be the equivalent as to naming it List of publications in theoretical computer science A previous AfD had a problem with this name structure and ended up putting the Important into it. Although I (personally) would have Keep'd that as its inclusive of all that WP has. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 01:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable" in the context of the title of an article probably wouldn't mean the same thing as WP:NOTABLE. It suffers the same (real or imagined) problems as "important", but introduces an ambiguity. Better to avoid it altogether. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per Kvng. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not WP:OR, for the reasons already amply discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics. However, I note that this article does need further references to establish the notability of the items on the list. Improve, don't delete. Jowa fan (talk) 08:08, 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 ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 17:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exit2Dos. Would you or would you not agree given these references [1] that books, journals and other references on the subject of Theoretical Computer Science have been discussed as a group which is the notability requirement from WP:NOTESAL? --Mike Cline (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not sure a Bibliography would do to discern what is important and what is not, nor am I sure a bibliography can be a Cite source. A Bibliography is a "a systematic list of books and other works". At its very most basic, this is a list of qualified <stuff>, Where is that list coming from? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A list of books on a topic is a bibliography by any other name. This list meets the notability standard in WP:NOTESAL therefore is should not be deleted on notability grounds. You are actually talking about Selection or Inclusion criteria WP:LSC from the Standalone List Manual of Style. Typically Manual of Style issues are not grounds for deletion. If this list meets our notability standard for lists, then on what other grounds from WP:DEL#REASON to you suggest this article's deletion be based on? --Mike Cline (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bibliography (according to WP:PSTS) is "helpful in providing broad summaries of topics", that in no way says what is "Important". Without a Cite to act as the foundation (stating person X lists <stuff> as important), it does not matter how many Cites support the notability of individual entries in this list. Its all OR, well educated and well meaning Editors are using it as a Coatrack to hang their favorite WP:ILIKEIT publication on once they find a "person x said my fav. pub. is important" Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are arguing about Selection or Inclusion criteria, not the notability of the list. Are you saying that this list is not a bibliography? And even if you believe it is not a bibliography, do you contend that no reliable secondary source has ever discussed important books related to Theoretical Computer Science as a group. In other 7&words, you believe this list does not meet the standard of WP:NOTESAL. This one reference [2] would argue otherwise, but I would be interested in your answer. Inclusion criteria, although important, is not the inclusion standard for lists in the encyclopedia--WP:NOTESAL is that standard. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a bibliography, it is currently a List of important <stuff>. No, I am not saying no reliable secondary source has ever discussed important books related to <stuff> as a group... I am saying none has been put in this List the entire run of this AfD where people have been arguing that every entry WP:OBVIOUSLY belongs in it & that it's all WP:Common knowledge. If someone could add this sort of a Cite I wouldn't be saying it at all. If I were to find where my City Council lists every garbage can in the city; could I use that sort of a "bibliography" as the basis for a [[List of Important Garbage cans in my city]]? No, because no two city councillors would be able to agree on which ones are "important"(subjective), and it would be OR for me to call them important without finding a reliable secondary source that says "person x says these garbage cans are important". Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 20:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC) using your own example: Yellowstone Bird Report 1999 thru 2006 satisfied this condition (the source of the List) for Birds of Yellowstone National Park, a reliable secondary source talks about what was seen. The Attack dogs list has no source from which it draws its List. its the same thing here. Where is the list of important <stuff> coming from? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. 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) 22:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of lists is saying the same basic thing I am saying, please state if you would wish this List Userfied to allow time to find what may be lacking and/or find a better name for this page. I am not sure if this can also be done to deleted Articles/List, but I believe an Admin could do so. I do not want to see information disappear, I would rather it simply conform. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have made the Godel link into a general reference for the list. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:LISTN with multiple reliable sources discussing substantial subsets of this list. I have no doubt that the Gödel prize which seems to be awarded for such lankmarks is a good source. Others have pointed out more that more extensive list exist in print. There is no requirement that a single source cover all the entries in this article. 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) 21:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may surely be lists of such a group of topics, anything semantized as important in theoretical computer science and is a publication, but I don't see them nor has anyone provided any.Curb Chain (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is: Gödel Prize has been unearthed, as you see from the previous post. --Matt Westwood 22:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Godel Prize winners is an entirely different subject from this article.Curb Chain (talk) 22:56, 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.