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. Sandstein 14:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Academic genealogy of theoretical physicists[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Genealogy of Theoretical Physicists

Articles for deletion/Academic genealogy of theoretical physicists

[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)

Despite its current length, it is nowhere near complete and presumably is open-ended anyways. On the other hand, it will never be truly complete since most entries will not meet WP:LISTCRITERIA. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is not the right place for this kind of list. Projects like PhysicsTree offer a much better infrastructure for this kind of information (observe how awkward the current list handles co-advisors). If anything, the information contained in this list should be migrated to Wikidata using the doctoral advisor (P184) and doctoral student (P185) properties.

(Note: there was a previous AfD in 2006) --bender235 (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the phrasing, like If an advisor did not exist [...] an academic genealogical link can be constructed suggests that this is an OR project; it's fine to invent a method of gap-filling for one's own personal tree-building hobby, but Wikipedia articles shouldn't be doing so. XOR'easter (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like original research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Parts of it may be original research, but I'm not convinced we shouldn't leave templates demanding it be fixed and give editors a chance to work on it. There are several websites devoted to this topic and original research doesn't need to be done and it would not take that long to strip the article of problematic phrases. Also, See Template:Dynamic list, a dynamic list is by no means a reason to delete an article, though the template should be used. The only real claim for a deletion then, is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and I will leave other editors to debate that. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. I hate to throw the pupa out with the dihydrogen monoxide, but this is a huge, mostly unsourced, mess. Userfy if you absolutely must for the children. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2020 (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.