- )
14 keeps / 11 deletes; and closed as “delete”? (what math am I missing here?). This page was a very core article in the science articles. This was one of the most ridiculous vfd’s I have seen. I will bring this issue to the science talk pages to get concerned editors involved. Sadi Carnot 16:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. I have no opinion on the article in question, but the closing admin's explanation for his close as he did is quite well reasoned. AfD is not a vote, so 14-11 is meaningless if the keep !votes don't provide adequate reasoning. And note that ]
- Comment (to Corvus): I posted to interested parties, namely the various science projects:
Lavoisier “father of chemistry”, Claude Shannon “father of information theory”. I wasn’t a main editor on this article, but can’t believe it was even considered for deletion (a vote that I didn’t know about). Science editors are going to be the ones who know the importance of these terms and this article. Simply because the article didn't have enough references is no reason to close as delete. -- Sadi Carnot 17:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC) [reply- I agree here, with a point that science editors should have kept the other stuff out, and moved it to a more tightly focused title. This title was always going to get out of control. About the canvassing, you have been saying "please help us restore". If you are going to leave notes like that, it is best to be objective. Carcharoth 17:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree about being objective, and tight focus, etc., but similar to ragesoss, I can’t even believe this is happening. Someone sneaks an historical article vfd through the nets because an article lacks a few references? --Sadi Carnot 17:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I also didn't notice this until it was deleted, and in a moment of weakness and outrage at the interpretation of the discussion, I tried to unilaterally undelete this out of process. Needless to say, process won out. There's a difference between weighing the force of difference arguments and simply choosing the one argument a closing admin thinks is the best; the latter is what happened here, and I don't think any close but "no consensus" would be legitimate. Furthermore, I find Carcharoth's argument (which the closing admin relied on) to be a twisting of policy. This page was not original research.--ragesoss 16:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My distinction, which I should have made clearer, was that you will easily find tightly focused lists of "Father of Topic X", but you will rarely (if ever) find a published, reputable list that attempts to lump all the lists together. My comment, if I'd paid attention, would probably have become a split into more tightly-focused lists. But I lost track of that debate and when I returned, it had been closed. I will gladly help build up a science and technology list. Carcharoth 17:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that refocusing and/or splitting the list would improve it.--ragesoss 21:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Closing admin correctly interpreted the strength of the arguments and not just the number of the arguments.
ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
- Comment. This is a difficult one. While the sheer numbers say keep, the arguments are largely both the same as one another and specious. I recall looking over this at the time and being very unsure. The delete arguments are generally more convincing, and numbers aren't the be-all and end-all of consensus. SamBC(talk) 16:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll endorse this. The AFD is a discussion, and not voting. When I close an AFD, I will sometimes discount, or assign less weight to certain arguments. Navou banter 16:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. A reasonable statement explaining the close was given in the AFD. Friday (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Limited overturn - I commented on the original AfD, and I see my comment may have influenced the close. I've now been reviewing the original AfD, and the arguments pointing at
List of premature obituaries and List of HIV-positive people as good examples of featured lists have convinced me that some form of list for science and technology pioneers and inventors is needed. This list would be a good start, though I still think some better criteria than "father of" could be found. Suggest restoring a copy of the article(s) to a subpage at a suitable WikiProject (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science), to allow a science-based list to be extracted from this. This will make more sense than lumping together things such as baby carrot, grunge, microcarrot, wargaming, the American political cartoon, and the other similar entries. If it would be easier, overturn, restore, edit out the non-science and non-technology ones (putting them on a new list somewhere on a talk page), and move to a better title (eg. List of science and technology pioneers). Would you believe, in the time it took me to write this, six other people got in first? :-) Carcharoth 17:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC) [reply
- Comment from deleting admin. Cited sources have to actually be about the claim being made. That has always been the problem with this list--it uses sources to point to a turn of phrase, not an idea. I have no objection to Carcharoth's compromise as long as whatever claim the list makes is actually backed up by the sources. I have said many times that I am happy to provide the content to anyone interested in starting over with a different methodology, and I'm sure any other admin would as well.
Chick Bowen 17:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC) [reply- Could you clarify what you mean here by 'turn of phrase' and 'idea', with an actual example? Carcharoth 17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A good example of a bad source in this list would be this article, which does not actually claim that Atanassoff would better be given the title of "father of computer" than any of the various other people, but merely uses the phrase in eulogizing him. One thing that would greatly help is to organize the list by topic, not by name.
Chick Bowen 17:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC) [reply
- Comment: (about sources and prominence of parentage) note the opening paragraph of chemistry as well as two sections in Talk:Chemistry to see that “parentage” is a major issue in science. This is one of many examples to justify a central page on “fathers” or “mothers” of something. As to sources, I am always willing to add references (10-40 in some cases) to someone who questions the validity of a science article and will gladly add at least 10 to this one. --Sadi Carnot 17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD is not a vote, so the numbers are of limited significance. They are not irrelevant, because the weight of agreement is relevant to consensus. But there are policy based arguments that would override any contrary consensus (the canonical example is a copyright violation). The closer didn't do a great job of articulating what policy based reason for deletion he was citing. However, one overriding policy is
GRBerry 17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC) [reply
- Honestly, I haven’t seen this article in a few months, so I can’t remember what the references looked like (and I barely edited it, but a few times); but the fact that we’re even have a “references needed” discussion for an obvious topic of historical value clarifies that this entire deletion discussion is a misuse of Wikipedia redtape (i.e. deleting per
WP:NOR or no references, or whatever, etc.). -- Sadi Carnot 17:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC) [reply
- Oh, you won't have to look far to find lots of science and technology "father and mother of" lists. That has been done before. And actually, most good sources will mention why xyz is considered father/mother of in the same breath as stating it. It is the why that needs to be sourced here, not the is. What doesn't need to be sourced is a general discussion of the concept of father/mother - that would be for a different article altogether (something like History of the father/mother trope). Carcharoth 17:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong overturn: O.K. I just looked at the cached-version (which I hadn't seen) of the article and there are 221 references and the closing comment was “list as it stands is essentially original research”? Are you kidding me? These terms are common trivia questions (basic human knowledge); there’s hardly anything original about this. How can an article with over 200 (different) references be deleted as original research? We need to overturn this article deletion. --Sadi Carnot 17:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: also, if we are going to rename the article, I would suggest
Edward Guggenheim must be considered as the founders of modern chemical thermodynamics.” Now, for students of chemical thermodynamics, there is great meaning in sentences such as this. -- Sadi Carnot 18:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC) [reply
- Overturn deletion. While good arguments for deletion in the debate, it is absolutely clear that there is no consensus for deletion from this discussion. I agree with others that this article does need attention and I like some of the suggestions for renaming it. -MrFizyx 18:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn — did I miss where we started deleting potentially good articles instead of just fixing them? Several solutions were presented and ignored in the original AfD, such as sorting by topic (alphabetizing makes no sense whatsoever for this kind of list) and paring down entries with stronger inclusion criteria (which would presumably include there being more than one random source calling someone the father of something but rather a sourced good reason for the name). It seems like the latter directly addresses the closing admin's concern. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly Endorse Deletion - Sweet Jesus on a Pogo Stick, how many times is this oddball article going to keep coming back from the dead? I called for a
synthesis of sources that use similar terminology to describe a notable person in a field of study. Not that that's really relevant, as deletion review is not AfD Part II. That the nominator does not like the AfD result is not a reason to overturn an article deletion. The AfD closer judges the weight of the argument and considers the applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines; it is not a vote. Tarc 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC) [reply
- Overturn deletion. I thank Sadi for pointing me towards this discussion. I find it outrageous that the vote was interpreted as delete. I always was under the assumption that when a few editors were in favor of keep then it was to be keep. A vote of 10 keep and 90 delete in my mind is still keep. This allows 10 enthusiastic science editors to defend a science article against 90 Startrek/Harry Potter/manchester United fans. I find this proceeding very disturbing and I will take action against the administrators in question. I find the list extremely intriguing and an excellent starting point for exploring wikipedia, in that sense lists like this one has a status similar to that of portals (or are we going to mass-delete portals next? portals are not very encyclopedic....) V8rik 20:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your view of Wikipedia consensus is quite out-of-line with standard practice...the numbers are secondary to the arguments presented and admins are given a few degrees of freedom to interpret arguments and weigh policy considerations. The rest of your comment is just a muddled pile of logical fallacies. And how, pray tell, will you "take action" against the closing admin? — Scientizzle 20:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, we have admins arguing among themselves over this and at the same time admins are of course infallable. Wiki is in much more trouble than I thought. V8rik 20:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak endorse Had I voted in the AfD I would have recommended deletion based on a rationale similar to the closing admin's comments (the list is a catalogue of individuals that have nothing in common other than some source that claims that said individual was a founder of anything). I don't like the canvassing, and the out-of-process restoration wasn't good, either...That said, I'm classifying my endorsement as "weak" because "no consensus" would have been an understadable close. Plus, I think there's a tiny chance that some of the suggestions in the AfD & this DRV might address the major concerns raised in the deltion discussion. — Scientizzle 20:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I did some searching, and this Google Scholar search for "father of" and "science", brought up some interesting results. I still think that if this is restricted to science and technology, there is potentially a very good article here. Carcharoth 21:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this should be restored as it should have been closed as "No consensus". I also suggest that it be renamed and focus on science and technology. However I do not agree with the comment "This page was a very core article in the science articles". It is just a list of rather unrelated items. The key use of "father of X" should be on the article on "X" and even there it is overdone in some cases. "Founder" is a much better term. --Bduke 22:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment although WP is not a court of law, process seems to be trumping what's right, so a good wikilawyer would point out that the only reason to overturn cited was the vote outcome and since AFD is not a vote, the review is procedurally flawed. But I'm not a wikilawyer, and it looks like this article will be resurrected despite it being an unmaintainable mess: so many people have been called the father or mother of something by so many people that many things have more mothers and fathers than would be biologically possible for living organisms. It's very little different than a "bests" list - best beaches, best flavors of ice cream, best left-handed tiddlywinks players from Springfield.... As we're counting score here: Process N+1, Results 0. Carlossuarez46 23:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion. The closing admin made a bad call. There was no consensus in the AfD discussion, which is why he had to justify his "delete" decision at such length. I quite agree with the admin who restored, whether it were "in Process" or not—as the discussion was closed on the basis of admin discretion (a concept I heartily agree with), it can also be reopened on that basis. As such, I also support Carcharoth's suggestion that it be restored immediately onto a WikiProject subpage so that it might be edited in line with the suggestions which have been made. Physchim62 (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn While AFD is not a vote, there was no consensus. Both sides presented many arguments, both strong and weak. For this to be a "delete", more than half of the "keep" opinions would have had to be entirely discounted. That should only be done if the comments are by SPAs/sockpuppets/meatpuppets or the comments are totally out of line with policy/guideline. None of that was the case here. However, the article needs lots of work. It needs a better name and stricter inclusion criteria. I would suggest that only people referred to as "father" or "mother" by multiple sources independent of eachother and the person or by a major scientific journal be included. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - With due respect to Chick Bowen, I think his preferencing of arguments was somewhat arbitrary and out of place. The
WP:NOR-based justification for deletion was, at best, very fuzzy and contentious, and so should have been left to the community instead of the closing admin. Editors have to evaluate whether a certain source is sufficient to deem X the father/mother of Y based on the credibility of the source and the strength of the claim. "Drexler is the father of nanotechnology because of his significant contributions" is debatable since figures like Feynman made significant and pertinent advancements before him. "Derrida is the father of deconstruction" is much more agreeable since he coined the term and is obviously most heavily associated with it. There are various criteria to consider - did the person coin the term used to describe the field? how significant were their contributions relative to others? did the person's contributions predate other significant contributions? It inevitably requires some editorial judgment, but that's not so much original research as simple judgment of well-sourced facts, and we can't really get around having to think for ourselves when editing. Editorial discretion can be minimized by establishing clear criteria on the talk page. At the very least, it's a very questionable NOR violation and thus not good grounds for overriding consensus. — xDanielxTalk 08:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC) [reply
Endorse, AFD is not a vote count. "People who have been called <something> by anyone at all in the media" is not an encyclopedic topic; ]
- Obviously the criteria would be stricter this time round, with the title changed to focus on scientists and inventors. And not just any old newspaper or website, but a reputable biography, obituary, journal, or (best) a book on the history of science. If such lists are not allowed, then
WP:TRIVIA need to be revised, as both talk about Wikipedia editors using such criteria to keep out trivial stuff, while also using such criteria to produce a focused list (be it a whole article or a subsection of an article). Carcharoth 09:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC) [reply- Specifically
WP:TRIVIA#Not all lists are trivia sections. Carcharoth 09:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC) [reply- Though there are also good points made at Wikipedia:Overlistification, specifically, Wikipedia:Overlistification#Over-extensive Lists. Radiant, would you say that as titled, this is an example of an over-extensive list, and would you say that narrowing the focus would address both this concern and the OR concerns? Carcharoth 11:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, let me think on that for a bit. My first impression is that it is "unrelated subjects with related names" (or in this case, titles) as stated on
WP:OCAT. Yes, I'm aware this isn't a cat :) >Radiant< 12:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC) [reply
- Overturn. There was no consensus to delete, and the problems with the article can be fixed by editing, renaming, or splitting, not deleting. --Itub 09:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - closing admin is completely correct in the reasoning for the close. Policy concerns raised by those in favor of deletion were not adequately addressed by the keepers and the arguments raised on both sides were properly addressed in the closing statement. As has been noted, AFD is not a vote so the fact that keep had a numerical majority is not enough to save the article. Otto4711 12:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change, and articles can be rewritten and improved. Also, AfD and DRV are not about deletion per se (or about 'saving' articles), but are about whether an article is salvageable, and whether any new information has come to light. Undeletion and userfication, or in this case restoring to a group of users, would precede such rewriting. I belive this addresses all your concerns. Carcharoth 13:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While consensus certainly can change, I do not believe that it did change in the course of this AFD or in the few weeks between the improper failure to delete this article and this DRV. The article is not salvageable because there is no way that it will ever be restricted to "only times that someone really important calls somebody the father of something" and no new information has come to light. I believe this answers your attempt to address my concerns by illustrating that you did not in fact allay them. Otto4711 14:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I forgot to mention that the article would be renamed. I agree that "father of" is not workable, but I do think that the information carefully placed on this list could be migrated to the various timeline articles. DRV is not just about restoring article de novo, it is also about retrieving information that can be used elsewhere. Carcharoth 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why would a science-related list be any better than one that includes fathers of jazz or traffic systems? Isn't this just creating a more-focused synthesis? The point of a list is to group together things that have a quality in common. The commonality of this list is extremely tenuous, turning on a common phraseology, not to mention that being "first" in a field of study doesn't necessarily mean that that person is more noteworthy than their successors. Deleting this list doesn't lessen the significance of Albert Einstein's or Dmitri Mendeleev's contributions. But seeing their names side-by-side does not increase a reader's understanding of either man's contributions to their respective fields. Again, being "first" is not rally a defining characteristic, and the judgment by the AfD closer that the association amongst them was loose and common is a sound one. Tarc 12:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In science, priority (being the first to discover something) is most definitely a defining characteristic. Have a look at Timeline of scientific experiments and Timeline of scientific discoveries. I now admit that "father of" is probably not workable, but the argument here is that there are a lot of potentially useful sources and references that could be examined and moved to a different location. That is not an unreasonable request. Carcharoth 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GRBerry 12:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC) [reply- The best I've been able to find is this - called Pioneers in Science Set - "176–208 pages. This unique 8-volume collection profiles the people behind the science. Each volume consists of 10 biographical sketches of pioneers in a particular scientific discipline, including information about their childhood, how they began their scientific career, their research, and enough scientific information for the reader to appreciate their discoveries and contributions....". Finding actual "lists of "father of" people" has been a bit harder, as reputable sources don't really do that sort of list. Maybe we could do something like
Timeline of invention - plenty of the "father of" people are listed at such timelines. For science, there is Category:Science timelines, which has things like Timeline of scientific experiments, and Timeline of scientific discoveries. These are all more informative than a "father of" list, so I'm now thinking that restoration should only be to retrieve the references and to move them to the relevant timelines. It takes time to work out what needs to be done with some material, which is why I find drive-by AfD and DRV voting so annoying. Discussion really can lead to new ideas and possibly a better way forward. Carcharoth 13:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC) [reply
- Overturn. There was no consensus to delete the article. The OR/synthesis argument is a weak one, in my view. What original position was advanced in the article? What is the synthesis here? There is none. I think a good argument revolving around
WP:NOT#DIR was made, but even that was challenged (perhaps best by Haemo: "the concept of being the 'father/mother of something' is a noteworthy one, and an important attribute of a number of historical figures"). — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC) [reply
- Endorse deletion major Deja Vu. Keep !votes weren't policy-based or, IMO, convincing. Admin discretion seemed reasonable. Perhaps add a comment for "allow the possiblity of a better article in the future?" Bulldog123 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-naming/splitting suggestion
The consensus seems to be overturn (11 votes) [vs. endorse (6 votes)]; thus a naming suggestion: if the article were to be split, I might suggest:
In this manner, we could separate undisputed classics (such as Jabir Ibn Haiyan. Similarly, as mentioned above modern chemical thermodynamics has three founders. In this manner, the reader can see and compare the people and references side-by-side. The way the current article is, we have two or more listings for “father of chemistry”, “father of scientific method”, etc., but the reader doesn’t know this unless he or she plays the game memory with the list. -- Sadi Carnot 22:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC) [reply- Opinion summary:
User:Laura Scudder agree that it should be organized by topic; User:MrFizyx likes the renaming suggestion; and User: Physchim62 suggests that it be reopened into a Wikiproject subpage to begin working on some of these proposals. -- Sadi Carnot 23:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC) [reply- Would you mind removing me from the list supporting the split you have proposed? I would support the information being used in a heavily annotated paragraph-style list-article, such as ]
- O.K.
timeline of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and random processes and merging this “father-mother” list to random timelines isn’t going to help anything. There’s a big difference between being called the “father of something” vs. being a component in a timeline as a pioneer. My consensus, aside from your view, is that most editors want to re-open the article, but have it cleaned of trivial views and such. As for the name, my suggestions may not be perfect (we might just as well keep it the same name) but your suggestions are basically names to merge the list into some kind of history article (but this has already been done). -- Sadi Carnot 17:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC) [reply- Well, I think Timeline of science disciplines would accomodate the same material, and would be more informative than a rather pedantic "father of" list. The "father of" list loses the vital context of dates, which a timeline would provide. The basic idea would be to give approximate dates, with sources, for when the different science disciplines began to emerge. The extra context and discussion (from secondary sources) of what "father of" means in different cases, would tell the reader far more than a simple list ever would. Carcharoth 00:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note to register my strong opposition to both the assumption that keep and split is going to be accepted and to the proposed new articles, which would suffer from all of the same problems as the original. Otto4711 19:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you say that when you haven't seen the new articles? There is a presumption at DRV that useful content can be restored to user space for editors to work on and to improve. There are numerous admins who make quite clear that they will undelete and userfy material if someone requests it in good faith, and that a formal DRV is not required for this. No amount of opposition will change that. I agree with you that the current format is not viable, but where I disagree with you is the idea that "delete at all costs" is the correct solution. There is useful content there (mainly the references) that could enhance other articles. Carcharoth 00:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn view and organise by topic splitting if appropriate. The page is interesting, encyclopedic and mostly sourced. I don't see a clear consensus for deletion. This is an instance where we fix and improve rather than dump. Bridgeplayer 00:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I think Otto put it best. AfD is not a vote, and the issues with synthesis have not been addressed, specifically compiling many dozen passing mentions of a term into a single set of information. (
( 'Stop') : ( 'Go')) 13:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC) [reply
- Comment - AfD is not a vote, and neither is DRV. It seems awfully presumptuous to plan this as if the DRV is going to result in a overturn because of a tally. Tarc 19:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - Consensus was not followed, and the closing administrator's logic was not convincing enough to outweigh consensus. AFD is not a vote, but we say that to avoid meatpuppetry and people with bad policy arguments. But the policy arguments were sound. WP:LIST also allows this to exist. The Evil Spartan 00:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The closing admin did a very poor job of evaluating the arguments, if he was going to use his discretion to judge what arguments were policy based. Essentially every one of them was some version of THISSOUNDSSILLYTOME. I would have thought so too, if I had not looked at the actual contents of the article. We're judging the subject, not the title. the reason for not judging on this basis is of course, that everything on WP sounds silly to some of us, and we build the encyclopedia by accommodating us all. This was not a time to judge in the disregard of consensus. All encyclopedia articles are the collection of selected material, and sometimes it takes a knowledgable person to do the collecting. The majority of those at the Afd understood this. the closer did not. He judged by what arguments appealed to him, and said as much, DGG (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
