Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/List of scientists

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. While lists of lists maybe useful, there needs to be some clear guidance from the community about how this is to be assessed. Without guidelines, this page has little meaning or usefulness, and I have read the arguments and decided there is a reasonable consensus for deletion. Peterdownunder (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists[change source]

List of scientists (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Creol has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: not an actual list --Creol(talk) 16:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

  • Oh dear! Einstein is not on the list? Well, nobody has pointed out that on the talk page.--Only two Americans on the list? Maybe anyone can inform the talk page.--I am leaning towards Keep, because the topic is notable.--Arguably, significantly constructive steps have not been taken on the talk page, except by user:Eptalon as far as I can see.--Is this thread likely to attract various rants? When arguments suck, then that seems to be when rants largely come into play. 89.8.70.129 (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the talk page: "No Einstein, Curie or Hawking".. Nobody pointed it out? Did you even bother to read the page you are giving an opinion on or are you making this up as you go along? and Just because a topic may be notable that does not mean what is said about that topic is notable. The only thing here that is notable is the fact that key people are not listed. The end part of your post is just inane trolling as usual and Ill just ignore it. --Creol(talk) 19:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read your 17 first words on the talk page (after reading what user:Eptalon wrote the previous year; With those 17 words under my belt, it was time to skim thru the rest of your stuff, and then go back to re-read what user:Eptalon was saying.)--Remember to keep having Good Faith; the Good Faith you give approximates the Good Faith you get. 89.8.70.129 (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added [1] some information to "your" thread on the talk page, in case it is of interest to the many users that read that page. 89.8.70.129 (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Topic: Do try to stay on it. And you may want to actually read WP:AFG. It says that it doesn't apply to you any more --Creol(talk) 21:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This [2] is one version of the article, before user:Creol added a twist, together with the edit remark "Reverted edits ... to last version by Creol ... Rollback"; I can not quite see how his following edit was helpful. 89.8.70.129 (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC) 89.8.70.129 (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit you listed is (at this time) the current edit. What "following edit" are you hallucinating about? As to why you got reverted, the adds were not main articles about the section tagged. Bad edit= reverted edit. If you can't provide good info, don't expect it to stay around. --Creol(talk) 22:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - BUT either make it a list of other lists (see enWP) or redirect it directly to the parent category. Also, both of you, your discussion did nothing but make this more confusing. Stick to the topic, not each other. It takes two to tango. Griff (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Between 1 and 5 people per country; if there's more, refer to external listing. [...] 14 May 2021"; That seems to be one good suggestion on the talk page. 89.8.145.100 (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but then how do we decide who gets included in those 1-5? One per type of science (and then which sciences)? The ones with the most coverage in sources? A broad representation of time periods? enWP breaks this down in their own lists, and I think that's probably a much more manageable way to do it Griff (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So.. redo everything about the list but keep it? How exactly does that work? And as this issue has been sitting around for at least a year untouched, how is this redo expected to actually take place? Also if the cat tree is correct, there 57 country cats (so at least 3 each there, up to several hundred) plus another dozen pages not in individual cats. I would also expect there to be most than a few pages that aren't properly cat'd to also be out there somewhere. And this is just pages we already have, not getting into pages we will have (Nobel templates alone causing several hundred links for wanted pages) and pages off our radar as Im fairly certain there is a lot more than 60 countries with scientists. Out of what 197? less than 1/3 and what about former countries? As Ancient Greece has people on the list, do we exclude other past countries? Are the part of the UK considered separate entries> 5 per country or 5 out of the 65m people x 1000ish years. All of Germany? Reunified, East, West, Nazi, since 1870s. Russian Empire, Soviet Russia, USSR, modern Russia. And who decides which makes the cut? No red-links? "Real" scientists, anyone with the equivalent of atleast a BS degree, anyone in science like field? People with no actual formal science training but "life experience"? Dual citizenship? The list of "what abouts" is nearly endless on such a vague topic. --Creol(talk) 06:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is an (arguably) okay version [3]. 89.8.145.100 (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC) 89.8.145.100 (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Move to Lists of Scientists and make the corresponding cats MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 14:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: Per the policy on article titles, we use sentence case in article titles, so I don't think it should be moved — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 14:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fehufanga didn't mean to capitalize it; let it be "Lists of scientists" MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 01:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean now. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 01:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On further inspection, perhaps it should be moved to "Lists of scientists by nationality" and only include scientists that have the corresponding lists. This would reduce the ToC size and be more reasonable. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 15:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argument for Keep: For (relatively) many countries, we seem to be missing articles about any one scientist (from that one country). That shows a need for the article, one might say.--Now, I am going to pull out the "J card": I seriously doubt that Jimbo Wales would say that this list goes against his vision of wikipedia. If you think I am wrong, then I dare you to ask him. 89.8.69.203 (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice Argument from authority you've got there. Gotanda (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, but read on. Of course, if done well, this is a notable page. But it is done badly. Done badly it is offensive for its many errors and omissions. En wiki does it with three main lists, which shows this is not a simple matter. I suggest we delete this piece of work, and if a regular editor wants to do it properly, why not? I'm against keeping this rubbish as it is at present. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a wiki where we depend on any one, single "regular editor"; if non-"regular editors" drop by and do a good job, then fine. (If you were trying to say something between the lines, then please spell it out.)--The topic seems to be notable. 89.8.142.83 (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    About omissions: there is good news. In the Gallery section there are photos of one "Curie" Curie and one Einstein and some others. 89.8.90.175 (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. Second try: Very bad random list of people with no criteria. Stands in the way of something much better. Delete. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My claim (or rhetoric) says "It's (arguably) not standing in the way for anything". Your rhetoric/claim says that it is standing in the way.--Nothing is waiting to take the place of the article.--However, I sort of get many of your points (and I largely disagree with them: "Very bad random list", "done badly" etc.).--No criteria, you say? Does not the title use the word "scientists" - maybe that is more than a clue (when it comes to criteria)? 89.8.143.227 (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC) 89.8.143.227 (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it was originally created as a form to say, "look there are also scientists from countries which have less of them." - It does however have several problems: 1) What do we consider to be a "scientist". Martin Heidegger (1899-1976) certainly was notable, and certainly would make a good figure on such a list, but he was either a philospoher or a theologian - both are scientists, so are linguists 2) Limiting this list to 3-5 per country, as I suggested a year ago, gives us the problem of who to pick, if there are more. 3) References are thin to no-existent, so this list is mostly "look there's a bunch of people I picked, and called 'scientists'" 4) I think that in the case of the Arab world, I alos picked women, to show that this is not entirely a male domain 5) Having such listing, in what way are two people comparable, if they are picked randomly from the list? 5) Just imagine 50-100 (or more) countries, times 3-5 people: this listing is impratical. 6) Just imagine, we wanted to add Mauritania: who would you pick to represent "scientists from Mauritania", and why? - So if we really wanted, there are two ways (which don't exclude each other): a) we use categories b) we group by scientific domain / field of study. And lastly: Do you remember Kofi Annan for being an econmist? or Boutros Boutros-Ghali for being a lawyer? - In short: it would probably be best to delete this listing, and its sublists..--Eptalon (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ooo.. tough one there.. Lets see.. I would go with Diagana Toka. Doctorate in Mathematics, over 100 research papers written as well as several books. Key member of several journals. Why him exactly? Very limited pool of options. En doesn't even have a cat for Mauritanian scientists though there is one entry for a Mauritanian political scientist. That guy would be my second choice by default. --Creol(talk) 21:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regrouping consensus etc. - How about having one scientist from each country, or one man and one woman from each country. (The article has links to other relevant lists.)--"Curie" (the most famous one), I can move onto the list, after the list (maybe) will be kept.--In regard to following some of the logic from this thread: every list (or nearly every list) should be deleted from Wikipedia. Perhaps one can say that some logic has flaws. 89.8.71.181 (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One has used the argument "Do you remember ... Boutros Boutros-Ghali for being a lawyer?"--That might sort of be like saying "Well, Mahatma Gandhi's career as a lawyer was probably not a significant part of who he was". On the other hand, one might say that his career as a lawyer had everything to do with who he was (and who he became). 89.8.71.181 (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: This [4] version seems okay, down to (and including) Brazil.--It is still a List (and we can let someone else figure out who is the "Curie" of Brazil, and so forth.) 89.8.71.181 (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The page can always be improved upon, and doesn't necessarily have to be deleted. We just need someone who is willing to spend time to fix it up and add relevant people to it. Hockeycatcat (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Hello all, you'll find my vote above; I'll just add a comment here, to show this list is very difficult to maintain. Look at the line "Austria": We got one entry, Sigmund Freud. Yes, Freud is definitely notable, and definitely important. However: Karl Landsteiner got a Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, in 1930; Lise Meitner, well-known physicist, almost got a Nobel Prize, Anton Zeilinger, Karl von Frisch, Nobel prize in the 1970s, Carl Djerassi, important for the development of contraceptives -I could go on, but in my opinon it clearly shows, that this is a very problematic list, with a "high upkeep" cost.--Eptalon (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's already a criterion post-1900, and it's all Nobel Prize-winning scientists. You need a way to stop people adding names because "There's no name from (wherever)". Pre-1900 requires biographies making claims which seem to rank as "would be a similar rank" if Nobels existed (!). Above all, we must avoid the element of unqualified judgement as IPs add unsupported names from their own countries. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'll add a bit more. Cases like Freud are controversial because many (including many psychiatrists) would not see him as a scientist. About his notability there is no question. I would therefore argue against his being on this list, but not about his notability and obviously we should (and do) have a page on him. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sigmund Freud - I have removed his name. 89.8.151.66 (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the father of psychoanalysis not a scientist? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 13:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, because psychoanalysis is not a science. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He actually had a doctorate in medicine.... Eptalon (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Psychoanalysis is a part of psychology, enwiki, which is in social sciences MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 20:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Macdonald-ross is wrong (and our article now [5] proves that. (You might sort of be thinking about that psychoanalysts, in many countries, do not have to be physicians/medical doctors.) 89.8.90.175 (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. All right. Let's get this over with. This page has terrible construction and nowhere near a comprehensive list. This page is likely a curation of entries by a singular person that thought of random scientists for 3 seconds and wrote this page. Seeing the history, Eptalon and others have improved it, but it would be better to delete the page or wipe it and redo it. 💠Ely - Talk💠 16:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Redo, says user:Ely. Talk page, is for "Redo". (Arguably that is an argument for "Keep".) 89.8.90.175 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TNT MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 20:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Jimbo Wales. 89.8.90.175 (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What does GriffenJimbo of Wales have to do with anything? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 05:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The pen is mightier than the sword.--Jimbo Wales vision of wikipedia (and his work for wikipedia), is mightier than wp:TNT. 89.8.182.250 (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    About curation: user:Creole has "chosen" Einstein and "Curie" Curie. Both of those scientists and others, are now in the gallery. 89.8.90.175 (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a list of lists. Deletion is not for cleanup. Clearly a notable topic. -Djsasso (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best hope for this article is a rewrite. One day, someone might do that. Their best option is to completely delete all the information in the article and copy over the corresponding en. article. and hopefully do some trimming to make it a version and not a copy (WP:SNOW). Nothing of this article will remain. The only thing being saved is the history of an article that doesn't exist. No matter how notable the topic may be, this 'list' is as useful as "Benjamin Franklin as a Scientist person." Wiki-hoarding.. --Creol(talk) 21:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Useful" as a scientist (science writer) and "notable scientist" are okay ways to describe Benjamin Franklin; He wrote Experiments and Observations on Electricity (at English-wiki).--It is always good to hear constructive and encouraging words from user:Creol. Thank you for a clear viewpoint. 89.8.95.63 (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Definitely keep this as a list of lists. Some cleanup might be useful but definitely don't delete. There is so much good work put into this and it'd be a shame to lose it. Blissyu2 (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This page isn't as bad as some people above are claiming. Deletion isn't cleanup and yes, w:WP:TNT is appropriate for some situations but this definitely isn't one of those situations. --Ferien (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a meaningles and unmanagebale mass of entries that looks like an orgainzed list. AS set up it is impossible to manage because of multiple undefined terms: Scientist is undefined here. From is undefined (birthplace, citizenship(s) which may change over time. Where they di their scientific work?) Country (Poland, anyone?) We had a whole string of Country Musicians from (State) a while back that were all similarly deleted. --Gotanda (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Gotanda is maybe not updated on later events: Simple-wiki has List of country musicians from various U.S. states: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_musicians_from_Alabama is one of those "state lists" - however, the Texas-list did get deleted (and it seems that a main point of contention was one musician that is counted as a Texan on other List (or category) on Simple-wiki.)--Just because a List about Texas country musicians was deleted - that does not mean that the "List of Scientists" should be deleted.--Putting it in another way: I have shown the existence of a List of Alabama country musicians, and I have pointed to its brethren (among state-lists regarding country-musicians). The lists that I am pointing to, they undermine the conclusion of user:Gotanda.--But I think I got the main point: some have arguments against "List of scientists" (while some others have arguments for "List of scientists"). 89.8.171.244 (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two issues: A "country musician" is pretty well-defined, and if I get more than three of them (standard for our categories, I can re-group them. Prolmem there is the "form" - "born in", "libing in", "had most concerts in"?- And as far as I remember, I re-grouped them, and I deleted the lists where I had less than three. To have something comparable, imagine a "List of artists from ..." --Eptalon (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What user:Eptalon sees as possible problem, has maybe not been a major problem yet; May I hereby present List of artists of Western Europe, and List of artists from Indonesia.--The current "List of scientist" shows that we have a huge problem outside of the lists: If the scope is too broad, then the list should have "too many" scientists; Instead, the list is doing us a public service by showing which countries have no scientist articles, and also showing us which countries do not have 3 scientist articles (and thereby a category), and also showing which countries have 3 scientists but no category.--One view is that any challenges inside the list, can be dealt with on the Talk page. 89.8.154.16 (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 89.8.154.16 (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, now. Re: "User:Gotanda is maybe not updated on later events: Simple-wiki has List of country musicians from various U.S. states" That links to a category, which was my original point. I see that Texas and Massachusetts lists were deleted, but that the others in the end were not. Perhaps they should have been at the time. I am surprised to learn that they were not. "From" has multiple common, simple meanings as agreed above, so though one person might intend to mean a single definition, it will not be understood as that one to many readers. So, the list is not clearly defined or meaningful and may mislead some readers. Eptalon believes country musician is well defined. I would disagree, but in any case, the issue was that the musicians commonly work in several genres. In this case the problem is definition of scientist which has been argued above. What qualifies a person to be a scientist on this list? And, what are the fields that are acceptable here? The artists argument is not comparable. Artists frequently live, work, and create in communities; they participate in movements: their location or origin groups them in a meaningful way that does not apply to scientists. There is no "Indonesian physics" or "Indonesian chemistry" that is distinctly identifiable from "Japanese chemistry." But, there are traditions and movements in Indonesian art, or other countries, that could serve to group lists in a meaningful way, not just as a coincidence. Gotanda (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At Science and technology in Indonesia, is where one will find "Indonesian chemistry" (made-up phrase, arguably, by user:Gotanda).--If someone is trying to say that scientists "frequently live, work, and create in communities; they participate in movements: their location or origin groups them in a meaningful way" - then many might agree with that (and thereby disagree with user:Gotanda). 89.8.166.124 (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 89.8.166.124 (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Had a look. There is no Indonesian chemistry in your link. One of the points of science is that it is not bound by national categories. Scientists do work in groups or communities, but those tend to be organized by field, not by nation. Gotanda (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There arguably is no evidence that artists are bound by national categories.--Of course artists are not bound by national categories. 89.8.71.169 (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point you are not even responding to what I wrote, but seemingly trying to put words in my mouth. Nobody wrote anything about artists being "bound by national categories." Please try to stick with what is in the discussion. Gotanda (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Gotanda has brought "bound by national categories", into this discussion - after dabbling into ideas about Lists of country-musicians.--Arguably it has not been a helpful, in trying to find out if "List of scientists" should be kept. 89.8.187.80 (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 16:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2022/List_of_scientists&oldid=8187535"