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 no consensus. I'm closing this as No consensus because I see decent arguments on both sides of this discussion and not preponderance of "votes" on either side. I don't think an addition relist would resolve this divide. But there might be another visit to AFD in the future. This might not occur if editing/pruning suggestions in this discussion are followed up on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 8 February 2023 (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 | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No clear criteria of what counts as a "important publication". Vast amounts of the list is unsourced. The previous discussion, which closed as "keep" in 2011, did not adequately address the WP:Indiscriminate concern. Foundational works in geology already have a place in the History of geology article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is in fact clear criteria at the top of the article. Topic creator – A publication that created a new topic, Breakthrough – A publication that changed scientific knowledge significantly, Influence – A publication which has significantly influenced the world or has had a massive impact on the teaching of geology. Dream Focus 12:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions and list of Lists-related deletion discussions. . Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that this article is not notable and note that there are several similar articles that should be brought here if this discussion leads to deletion. --Bduke (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No clear inclusion criteria. See also Lists of important publications in science Mucube (talk • contribs) 01:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neither useful nor notable. This lacks any clear definition as to what is an "important publication" and, thus, does not indicate how to determine what belongs on this list and what does not. Paul H. (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As I pointed out in the previous deletion discussion for this, which by the way ended in Keep, the requirements for inclusion are clearly listed at the top of the article. Other articles like this were up for deletion at the same time. Everyone listed has a link to their own Wikipedia article and/or a reference. Dream Focus 12:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rename per the rationale below The inclusion criteria suffer from being ill-defined and highly subjective and anything that meets them would be better served being included in an article about the history of the subject that publication is about. For example, Agricola, Georgius (2004) [1546]. De Natura Fossilium would be better served being included in an article about the history of mineralogy. In fact, the vast majority of entries on the list have their own articles already. -- Licks-rocks (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They have their own articles, so they can be grouped on a list that aids in navigation. Changing the word "important" to "notable", might work out better. Dream Focus 15:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*:One suggestion I see mentioned in a previous discussion about this is to drop "important" from the title. I would support this suggestion, because it removes the value judgement. Anything included in such a list would have to be independently E to qualify for inclusion, however, Licks-rocks (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. as an indiscriminate coatrack article. The listed publications are covered in the articles on the respective topics, and the vast gulf of options that Dreamfocuses "scope" gives would lead to every new article published being required to be included here.--Kevmin § 15:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 17:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly does not meet WP:NLIST.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No denying that this would be a useful and encyclopedic article if it had solid inclusion criteria. The tried and true approach to lists of "notable" things is whether they have their own article. Look at List of important publications in mathematics; could do with some weeding, but a fair number of these entries are articles in their own right. I'd hold out for that threshold. (Come to think of it, many of the lists collected under Lists of important publications in science would fail this. Some work needed her.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As per the reasoning of Kevmin above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think having poor inclusion criteria are a reason, by itself, for deletion. That could be fixable. However, per WP:LISTN, I cannot find reliable sources that discuss this (or similar) set of papers as a group. I've found a number of RS for a list of top journals in geology, and bibliographies of specialized geology topics. @Dream Focus: if you could find multiple RS that support the notion of "important publications in geology" (over the whole field), I would flip and argue for acceptance. — hike395 (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps call it list of publications significant in the study of Geology. What I added [1] was a referenced mention of a book used as the standard college textbook for the subject for decades, and a reference to a guy who was "The Founder of Modern Geology", his publication notable in this field. I'm hoping some Geology will mention if any of these guys or books were taught about in college. Did these publications get a significant award from those who give out awards for such things? Did scientific organizations list them on their required books list when they came out? Dream Focus 14:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm. I think a geology textbook would be the right place to look for a summary of all the important publications but I'm afraid that might still run headlong into WP:SYNTH unless it contains a literal list of important geology publications.

  I think your best chance would be a database of some kind, but I can't think of any that would list important publications only.

  I must point out that this list, in some form or another, is probably a good idea. I just worry that Wikipedia's rules don't necessary leave space for it if it doesn't already exist somewhere outside wikipedia. Licks-rocks (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, for three reasons:

1. The relevant notability guideline: Quoting WP:LISTN A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, this list meets the relevant notability criteria. (User:LadyofShalott lists three in the earlier AFD)
2. Existing consensus at the last AFD still applies.
3. WP:ATD While consensus above seems to be split on inclusion criteria suitability, that is an editing discussion and WP:ATD directs us to not delete if the issue is that the article can be improved = i.e. this is not a reason to delete. CT55555(talk) 23:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Existing consensus is over a decade out of date now, hence here we are again, and are in no way obligated or forced to give credence to the prior AFD if there is concern in the here and now. As already noted this article fails per [[WP:WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:coatrack, and a lack of any actual coverage of this outside of this article.--Kevmin § 15:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. After a lengthy first nomination, the consensus for keeping the article in that discussion still stands but also per WP:L, WP:LISTN, WP:LSC. GR86 (📱) 00:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I've changed my !vote to keep after reading the comment from CT55555 and reading the previous AfD. There are four references that support the topic, hence this article passes the list notability criterion. These four references were previously buried in "Further Reading", but I brought them up to the lede and made them inline citations.
  • Per the Talk comment by RockMagnetist, this article would be more acceptable if it were titled Bibliography of geology.
  • As noted by several editors above, the current list inclusion criteria are very subjective and needs to be cleaned up. I would propose new criteria: for a paper to be included in this bibliography, it either should be
    1. A subject of a Wikipedia article whose notability is established by multiple RS, or
    2. Appears in multiple bibliographies of notable geology papers.
  • I'm going to be WP:BOLD and start to use these criteria and cleanup the article. I'll also notify the Bibliography WikiProject to see if anyone there wants to help.
  • I think part of why so many editors dislike this bibliography is that it is heavily skewed to papers before plate tectonics. This would be like having a bibliography of physics where the papers were drawn before 1650 (Newton). Does anyone know of a good bibliography for modern geology papers? — hike395 (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another fixable issue: many of the entries in this bibliography have unreferenced commentary explaining the importance. This is likely due to the previous list criteria (which I have now removed from the article). This unreferenced commentary can now be removed. — hike395 (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • What specific Four references are you going by? (Considering that refs 1 and 2 are the same reference) and what explicit criteria are being used to make this NOT a indescriminate coatrack, and given that "Geology" is a vast super umbrella in which "important" to paleobotanists will irrelevant to volcanologists, will be noted but meh to paleochronologists.--Kevmin § 15:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      @Kevmin: I've placed this at the top of the Talk page:

To be included on this stand-alone list, each entry should meet the following list criteria: This list contains notable publications in geology. A publication should appear in this list if It is a subject of or topic in a Wikipedia article supported by multiple reliable sources, or It appears in multiple bibliographies on influential or notable publications in geology

I'm in the middle of trimming down the bibliography -- right now, it only consists of papers that are topics of (or within) Wikipedia articles. It contains foundational papers for topics such as plate tectonics and QAPF diagrams. By restricting entries to be on multiple general bibliographies, I expect only foundational papers will survive the filter. — hike395 (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreaciate that massive changes to the article are preceded by discussion in the talk page. Lappspira (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to be a relic of an earlier era of Wikipedia-writing, but it's eminently salvageable. The inclusion criteria suggested above are sensible to me. The alternative title "Bibliography of geology" is also snappier. XOR'easter (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This may be notable, but it's pure WP:OR for us to decide what constitutes an important publication. In my field of sociology I am aware of several lists of important publications (ex. this one). There are various ways of adding such information to Wikipedia: it can be mentioned in an article in a given work in the section about its reception or influence, some rankings may be independently notable, and such sources might even show WP:LISTN being met for a, well, list of important publications in sociology I guess. But we need to start with sources first. This list, unfortunately, is not based on sources but on original research and as such it merits WP:TNT approach. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Inclusion criteria can be refined. One point could be for works that achieve one or various bibliometric thresholds are made notable (e.g. Microtectonics of 2005) and another criteria could be works that have been written about at some length or otherwise celebrated. Lappspira (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If we are still figuring out what (WP:ORish?) inclusion criteria to use, the case for WP:TNT is stronger and stronger... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider article after major changes made to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it seems better, but there are still chunks without references. Simply saying a publication is "important" doesn't really help. Needs critical discussion for each item, or this is just a wall of text. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And even when referenced, this is still a mess with works like "Playfair, John (1802). Illustrations of the Huttonian theory of the Earth", which provides the following explanaiton for why the work is presumably important: "Hutton's book is widely regarded as unreadable, and may have remained obscure if not for this work by the brilliant prose stylist John Playfair." The sentence is cited, but seriously, nothing in the cited passage suggest this red-linked work is important. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could the referenced content be merged into History of geology perhaps, as a WP:ATD? MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:36, 6 February 2023 (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.