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. Discussion about renaming can take place on the talk page. T. Canens (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing[edit]

List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing (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]

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 Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it looks like the judgement of being "important" was a single editor in 2009? One idea would be to move content into more specific articles. In particular, the Dijkstra Prize article could be beefed up with a little discussion of each winner. Note the PODC is the same one, just the previous name of the "Edsger W. Dijkstra Prize in Distributed Computing" after 2003. The other respected award is the Gödel Prize which overlaps this, with independet verifiable source. W Nowicki (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 19:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That effort may prove futile, as it did for biology; the deletionists ruling the day appear to have put up such barriers that only articles that are speedily deletable as copyvios can hope to escape their OR verdict.  --Lambiam 11:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep References exist to show its importance, and many have won notable awards in their field. Dream Focus 19:29, 1 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) 22:40, 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} 23:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In English, whom cannot be used as the subject of a sentence. Now you may ask, "Whom says so?"  --Lambiam 11:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has a clear definition at the top of the article. If the word "important" is a problem, then call it "breakthroughs" or something. Dream Focus 02:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could go on and on about this. Who is going to define such subjective adjectives such as "important" and "breakthrough" in a field that requires the work of previous people?Curb Chain (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone knows what the word "breakthrough" means. [1] How about First publishing of something that was so notable that it is now taught in university textbooks on the subject? How obvious do we need this to be? Dream Focus 09:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be very obvious. And not, being a first in your field or making something used to be taught in university still does not make something important. "important" is simply vague and unobjective.Curb Chain (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the idea that each entry needs a Citation, it's the idea that the list itself needs to be cited from somewhere, so that it satisfies WP:LISTN's "discussed as a group or set". Whom said these are important? ...WP Editors... a reliable Secondary source... or are we assuming it is Common knowledge? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 04:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who said? The experts in their field obviously. The people that give out notable awards for this sort of thing. The people that decide its important enough to teach in classes about it, in major universities around the world. Dream Focus 09:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Who said? The experts in their field obviously." ... well then, please, point us to where an expert drew up this list of what is "important" and how they defined what "important" was. If it is as obvious as !voters are saying, then it shouldn't be hard to do. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exit2DOS's argument also perfectly applies to List of 1994 ballet premieres. Where are the multiple reliable Secondary sources verifying this list? It is pure POV and OR, and must be deleted.  --Lambiam 11:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's based on verifiable resources.Curb Chain (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that list is open to ALL, not just a exclusive club of "important" entries. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:06, 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) 00:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you do that? Closing an AFD for an article related but without the same number of references, doesn't make any difference here. Different administrators would've closed those AFDs differently anyway. Its all random sometimes. Dream Focus 02:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some people seem to be arguing that the deletion of other pages sets a precedent for deletion of this page; in fact this seems to be the principal reason for nomination. I don't believe that the notion of a precedent has any place in Wikipedia policy. If administrators' actions are being interpreted in this way, then I think they should be informed about it. I agree with you that decisions relating to other pages shouldn't be relevant here. Jowa fan (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I included those other discussions as most of the arguments in those discussions there applies here. Also note that opinions had be raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology that the outcome of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology would impact the other lists.Curb Chain (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. The argument there was the definition of the word "important". So just need a new name. Call it "notable" instead. Dream Focus 09:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So then we just list articles that we have on wikipedia? That is the function of categories.Curb Chain (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, wrong. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm right.Curb Chain (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:LISTPURP. Lists and categories are not meant to serve mutually exclusive purposes. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are labels. Unless there is a reason to explain the relationship between articles labeled, there is no reason to make a list.Curb Chain (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) List articles offer more detail and are usually far more useful. If you check the page governing such things, it explains in detail that you should never delete one simply because you think another would be better, there no reason not to have both a list and a category. And the list can have more in it than just links to Wikipedia articles of course. Dream Focus 00:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless, of course, there is no actual Cite where WP is drawing the list from. We need a reliable secondary source discussing the (WP:LISTN) "group or set" before WP can call a Topic (such as a List of Important <stuff>) WP:Notable. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to draw comparisons between this page and another page that's already been deleted. I asked User:King of Hearts about this, and he was kind enough to email me a copy of the deleted biology page. (He also said that he'll email a copy to anyone else who asks nicely). One thing that stands out is that the deleted page had no references. This is certainly not the case for the page currently under discussion.Jowa fan (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as a relevant argument: The references on this page are just list the entrants awards. I could divide this page into the papers that received Godel Awards and ones that recieved Edsger W. Dijkstra Prizes.Curb Chain (talk) 18:18, 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]

• 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 theoretical computer science --Cybercobra (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are six opened right now.

• 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 09:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the irony is that these articles originally did not have the word important in the title; it was added in 2006 as the result of this deletion discussion, which then saved the day for List of publications in biology but ultimately proved its undoing.  --Lambiam 11:15, 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 14:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that deriving a list from a reliable source would necessarily be a copyvio. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm getting very tired of making the same "keep" argument at each of these "List of important publications..." AfDs. This throwing articles against the wall to see what sticks seems inappropriate. Closing admin: please see my arguments elsewhere. I see no need to reiterate them. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, subject to extensive comments by Geometry guy. Geometry guy 23:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, may main argument is here. --Pgallert (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Geometry guy. Useful, encyclopedic and can be adequately sourced. —Ruud 08:46, 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) 00:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lambiam. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to List of notable publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing. Determining important without WP:OR is problematic. Notability we do every day here. --Kvng (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant arguments to lists.Curb Chain (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way you've transitioned from baseless arguments to simple unsupported claims. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat pointless. If an Article exists on WP then it is assumed that it is WP:notable. A rename such as this would technically be the same as renaming it List of publications in concurrent, parallel and distributed computing. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per Kvng. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:32, 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. This article seems to be well supported by references. Jowa fan (talk) 08:16, 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) 22:05, 7 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.