318:. This is a useful article, as shown by its Page view statistics - 2322 views in Sept.2011 (70 per day) and 2807 so far in Oct.2011 (over 110 per day). So some readers are consulting it, presumably as a guide to historically important papers and books in chemistry. There was no community consensus to delete the biology article, but certain editors kept repeating that it was OR, and one administrator deleted the article unilaterally. Yes, the article could be improved, but that can be said of most Knowledge (XXG) articles. If you disagree with one selection, perhaps it can be removed, but to delete the whole article is very demotivating to those editors who have worked to produce a good list, and a disservice to the numerous readers who would consult the article if it remains.
756:
should do. You claim inclusion is based on OR, but I am not sure what you mean by that. The list topic (if not explicitly) is clearly notable which is really the only necessary criteria for the list to exist. Individual entries are indeed subject to verifiability, and if their importance to chemistry (based on the lead criteria) cannot be established by sources, they shouldn't be in the article. But your are claiming (I guess) that the whole list is OR. That needs explaining as merely tossing out the OR argument doesn't help us decide here. What about this is OR? For example, the importance to chemistry of the first entry
339:. This is a poor nomination, based on a deletion conclusion that has been disputed and the article is now being improved in the incubator. As Lambiam indicates, it was followed by a whole set of AfDs all of which have not resulted in the lists being deleted. They did result in the Science Pearls Project being revitalized and I am sure this list will be improved as a result. One issue was the absence of sources saying that listing publications is important. I added some sources of this kind to the talk page, but they have not yet been used on the list itself. I am sure more sources can be found. --
235:
755:
is subjective but not meaningless. I would suspect the average reader of wikipedia would not be confused by its meaning or context in this article. The lead in this article does establish a context of importance by giving the word much more explicit contextual meaning. Something all good list leads
644:
No, just suggest a change of name. When it was just called "List of publications in chemistry", it was clear that normal wikipedia criteria of notability were to be used. I am happy to change all these lists back to that format, but that can be discussed elsewhere such as the
Science Pearls Project.
375:
259:
251:
231:
154:
243:
255:
247:
239:
186:
645:
We do not delete when a move can fix the problem. Some, of course, do not think "important" is subjective in this context. We just need sources that say it is. Dream Focus also deals with this issue above. --
459:. I'm wondering why this is even nominated for deletion. This is a very important topic with historical and technical significance. It will be a disservice to Knowledge (XXG) readers if this is deleted.
88:
83:
92:
148:
75:
556:
It is not original research. The word "important" is clearly defined. Not liking the name doesn't make for a valid reason to delete an article. We had this discussion many times before.
115:
800:
sufficient sources for the inclusion criteria. The decision in biology was an anomaly, and will be corrected , but just how it will be corrected willl depend on Mike's work.
780:
211:
476:- I don't think that getting e.g. numbers like 'number of articles citing a paper' is OR, and the top-ranking articles in that ranking could be deemed 'important'. --
79:
511:
71:
63:
169:
136:
489:
important works, and that the current version of the list is overly inclusive. But I reject the argument that the list as a whole should not exist.
839:
811:
792:
769:
744:
721:
676:
660:
635:
618:
601:
579:
545:
525:
502:
480:
468:
451:
432:
408:
387:
354:
327:
310:
287:
266:
220:
203:
57:
533:
130:
279:
609:
a lot of relevant objective scientific information. We can't have it lost because it does not fit well in the mental categories of a few.
126:
830:. Therefore I would like to suggest that we consider moving all of these lists into Knowledge (XXG) space as reliability guidelines.
17:
176:
693:
Influence – A publication which has significantly influenced the world or has had a massive impact on the teaching of chemistry.
195:
498:
142:
853:
236:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing
36:
614:
667:
Unfortunately, "important" is not clearly defined, as evidenced by the repeated attempts to delete these articles.
48:. Those objecting to the term "important" can use the article's talk page to help define the article's scope. --
852:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
494:
448:
283:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
278:, possibly restricting the list to those publications which are notable enough to have their own articles. --
788:
541:
426:
404:
822:
It would seem to me that the only particularly useful standard here would be to list the publications that
591:
article, which improves the
Knowledge (XXG) project by improving the browsing and navigation of articles.
610:
595:
464:
588:
765:
698:
See? Right there at the top of the article. Hopefully the closing administrator will see that too.
672:
631:
383:
396:
367:
260:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of important publications in theoretical computer science
740:
445:
162:
784:
681:
Fortunately, "important" is clearly defined, which is why these articles are almost always kept.
537:
418:
400:
395:
It has all been said before. I have added several general references for the list to comply with
199:
53:
521:
323:
263:
217:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
275:
252:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security
835:
699:
557:
460:
306:
441:
761:
668:
653:
627:
379:
347:
827:
779:- while non-constructive debates like this are being initiated, Mike Cline is drafting a
363:
298:
444:
is fully met, from a scholarly standpoint this is a useful tool for beginer chemists. –
232:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of important publications in computer science
736:
807:
783:. It is very likely that this and related pages will soon be renamed bibliographies.
477:
190:
49:
517:
336:
319:
244:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics
371:
256:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of important publications in statistics
109:
831:
302:
248:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of important publications in medicine
240:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of important publications in geology
187:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology
646:
340:
690:
Breakthrough – A publication that changed scientific knowledge significantly
440:
This is extreemly notable and encyclopedic, no guidelines are violated, and
626:
all such articles like this should be deleted as "important" is subjective.
802:
684:
Some reasons why a particular publication might be regarded as important:
485:
It could be argued that this list should be trimmed to include only
760:
is well supported by sources, so how can that be considered OR? --
262:, it is not original research, and the article should be kept. --
846:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
735:
Inclusion in this article is based upon original research.
416:- clearly a notable topic as per the references listed.
105:
101:
97:
687:
Topic creator – A publication that created a new topic
161:
534:
list of
Science pearls-related deletion discussions
185:This is essentially per the community consensus at
175:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
856:). No further edits should be made to this page.
378:. Ill-concieved and unsupported nomination. --
230:. Or, perhaps, per the community consensus at
376:Bibliographies of bibliographies of chemistry
8:
532:Note: This debate has been included in the
510:Note: This debate has been included in the
212:list of Science-related deletion discussions
210:Note: This debate has been included in the
72:List of important publications in chemistry
64:List of important publications in chemistry
531:
512:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
509:
209:
362:Nom provides no evidence that this is
370:notability criteria with this source
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
781:WikiProject for Bibliographies
1:
840:12:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
812:04:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
793:16:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
770:16:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
745:16:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
722:15:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
677:14:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
661:06:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
636:05:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
619:17:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
602:11:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
580:01:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
546:16:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
526:13:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
503:13:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
481:08:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
469:07:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
452:03:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
433:01:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
409:01:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
388:00:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
355:00:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
328:23:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
311:22:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
288:22:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
267:22:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
221:22:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
204:21:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
58:19:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
873:
297:per previous consensus as
372:Bibliography of Chemistry
849:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
826:generally recognize as
758:The Skeptical Chymist
751:Admittedly, the word
189:- original research.
366:. This list meets
598:
44:The result was
600:
594:
548:
528:
515:
215:
864:
851:
828:reliable sources
718:
715:
712:
709:
706:
703:
658:
651:
611:GrandPhilliesFan
599:
596:Northamerica1000
592:
576:
573:
570:
567:
564:
561:
516:
431:
429:
425:
421:
374:and this source
352:
345:
180:
179:
165:
113:
95:
34:
872:
871:
867:
866:
865:
863:
862:
861:
860:
854:deletion review
847:
820:
716:
713:
710:
707:
704:
701:
654:
647:
593:
574:
571:
568:
565:
562:
559:
427:
423:
419:
417:
348:
341:
122:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
870:
868:
859:
858:
819:
816:
815:
814:
795:
773:
772:
748:
747:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
696:
695:
694:
691:
688:
685:
664:
663:
639:
638:
621:
604:
587:– As a useful
582:
550:
549:
529:
506:
505:
483:
471:
454:
446:Phoenix B 1of3
435:
411:
390:
357:
330:
313:
291:
290:
280:202.124.74.144
269:
224:
223:
183:
182:
119:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
869:
857:
855:
850:
844:
843:
842:
841:
837:
833:
829:
825:
817:
813:
809:
805:
804:
799:
796:
794:
790:
786:
785:RockMagnetist
782:
778:
775:
774:
771:
767:
763:
759:
754:
750:
749:
746:
742:
738:
734:
731:
730:
723:
720:
719:
697:
692:
689:
686:
683:
682:
680:
679:
678:
674:
670:
666:
665:
662:
659:
657:
652:
650:
643:
642:
641:
640:
637:
633:
629:
625:
622:
620:
616:
612:
608:
605:
603:
597:
590:
586:
583:
581:
578:
577:
555:
552:
551:
547:
543:
539:
538:RockMagnetist
535:
530:
527:
523:
519:
513:
508:
507:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
482:
479:
478:Dirk Beetstra
475:
472:
470:
466:
462:
458:
455:
453:
450:
447:
443:
439:
436:
434:
430:
422:
415:
412:
410:
406:
402:
401:RockMagnetist
398:
394:
391:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
358:
356:
353:
351:
346:
344:
338:
334:
331:
329:
325:
321:
317:
314:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
293:
292:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
270:
268:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
226:
225:
222:
219:
213:
208:
207:
206:
205:
201:
197:
194:
193:
188:
178:
174:
171:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
132:
128:
125:
124:Find sources:
120:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
848:
845:
823:
821:
818:A suggestion
801:
797:
776:
757:
752:
732:
700:
656:(Discussion)
655:
648:
623:
606:
584:
558:
553:
490:
487:historically
486:
473:
456:
437:
413:
392:
359:
350:(Discussion)
349:
342:
332:
315:
294:
271:
227:
191:
184:
172:
166:
158:
151:
145:
139:
133:
123:
45:
43:
31:
28:
589:WP:SETINDEX
461:PolicarpioM
438:Speedy Keep
149:free images
762:Mike Cline
669:Curb Chain
628:Curb Chain
397:WP:NOTESAL
380:Mike Cline
368:WP:NOTESAL
753:Important
737:IRWolfie-
518:• Gene93k
116:View log
54:Edgar181
777:Comment
428:Shalott
337:Dirac66
320:Dirac66
276:WP:LIST
264:Lambiam
228:Comment
218:Lambiam
155:WP refs
143:scholar
89:protect
84:history
832:Mangoe
733:Delete
624:Delete
449:(talk)
442:WP:GNG
303:Mangoe
295:delete
258:, and
196:Anselm
127:Google
93:delete
808:talk
717:Focus
649:Bduke
575:Focus
364:WP:OR
343:Bduke
299:WP:OR
170:JSTOR
131:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
836:talk
798:Keep
789:talk
766:talk
741:talk
673:talk
632:talk
615:talk
607:Keep
585:Keep
554:Keep
542:talk
522:talk
499:talk
491:Keep
474:Keep
465:talk
457:Keep
420:Lady
414:Keep
405:talk
393:Keep
384:talk
360:Keep
335:per
333:Keep
324:talk
316:Keep
307:talk
284:talk
274:per
272:Keep
200:talk
163:FENS
137:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
46:keep
803:DGG
177:TWL
114:– (
838:)
824:we
810:)
791:)
768:)
743:)
675:)
634:)
617:)
544:)
536:.
524:)
514:.
501:)
495:DS
493:.
467:)
424:of
407:)
399:.
386:)
326:)
309:)
301:.
286:)
254:,
250:,
246:,
242:,
238:,
234:,
216:--
214:.
202:)
192:St
157:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
50:Ed
834:(
806:(
787:(
764:(
739:(
714:m
711:a
708:e
705:r
702:D
671:(
630:(
613:(
572:m
569:a
566:e
563:r
560:D
540:(
520:(
497:(
463:(
403:(
382:(
322:(
305:(
282:(
198:(
181:)
173:·
167:·
159:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
134:·
129:(
121:(
118:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.