359:"In Computer Science", indeed. There are graduate programs in computer science, there are curricula in computer science, there are overview works about computer science, and there are libraries for computer science. It's a valid category, and such a list,done right, could be useful for all of these situations. I often encounter students who want to know what the seminal works in a field were. If replaced by smaller articles, whether it's an article about a publication or an article about a "breakthrough" discovery, you're still splitting up the collection of important reading in the field. I fully agree that the article needs work; but let's keep it and improve it. Also, if you're referring to me as a scientist, I'm not a scientist; I'm a librarian, so I like to think I know a little bit about organization. --
388:
research. Knowledge (XXG) is a tertiary source, our job is to be a meta-meta-publication, if you will, that is, we have to find meta-publications that actually come out and say "publication A is important, publication B is not". The current list fails miserably in that regard: it doesn't cite any sources (which would have to be meta-publications, not those publications that are considered important according to the list). None. Zero. The two external links come closest, but then again who's to decide that "frequently cited" equals "important"? I want to say:
113:
publication is "important" No sources are provided to back up the allegation of importance. How do we know a book is a "good" introduction or survey? How do we measure "influence"? What constitutes "most advanced"? There is nothing to verify or support these opinions. Isn't this list better left where it belongs, in a library's catalog listing? There also seems to be no line drawn to keep the list from getting longer and longer. "Importance" diminishes in a crowd.
174:. The biology article has been brought here twice and kept. It was after the last time that the word "important" was added to all these lists. The chemistry list has a process to debate importance and come to consensus. I recommend that the others do the same. These lists are slowly approaching being lists of publications with a wide appreciation of their importance. If people think some entries are not important they can propse removing them on the talk page. --
281:. I think we need to determine whether this article meets the criteria set out there and then whether these criteria are proper for Knowledge (XXG). If they are not, then the whole project and its created pages should go. Such a debate might lead to a positive developement rather than just deleting stuff that many editors have contributed to and found usefull. I note that the editor who started this Project -
199:
I think we often use consensus to decide whether things are notable, important, etc. In the case of the chemistry article there some criteria about what importance means. These lists allow a reader to find a book that is historically or educationally notable within a discipline, so they are important
368:
Also, having this list of course doesn't preclude discussing the papers in fuller detail in the appropriate topical or discovery pages, which should be happening anyway; and a list does not preclude having individual articles about the books or papers in question. This list, like most lists, can be
112:
suffer the same problems. However, as only this is the only one that appears to be nominated, I'll stick to this one. The "criteria" are far too vague or subjective and are all a matter of opinion or a judgment call. We only have the say-so of the editors adding the publication to the list that the
311:
There are many such groups, where individual publications are other entities are not notable enough for a separate article, but are as part of an article such as this. We right here frequently end our discussions with consensus on a merge, and that produces such articles. The precedent with other
335:
This list has actually been useful to me in my job (as an academic); just now, I went specifically looking for it & came across this AFD. There may be subjectivity in determining importance, but there are also npov measures -- citation analysis, # of copies sold, historical first mention of a
387:
I'm torn about this list. The current version gets it partly right, at least in the sense that if a publication is included in the list, it is generally important. However, there is a huge problem: Who gets to decide what's considered important? Clearly it cannot be us, that would be original
349:
They don't have to be individual articles. If some breakthrough was a result of 2-3 seminal works, then write a single arricle about a "broken-through" issue and describe the papers there. Right now this eclectic collection is totally useless pile of data. I am surprized how scientists don't
410:. Quite a few entries strike me as ridiculous. For example, a number of textbooks. However popular they are, certainly they are not groungdbreaking. Further, "Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty process" labelled as breakthru. Huh? What did it break? If it was a
48:
to delete. But if sourcing isn't improved to show this is a list of publications experts in the field consider important, not just a list
Wikipedians consider important, a second AfD probably won't get such a generous close.
258:
Surely if these publications are notable in themselves, they are worthy of individual articles. Those can then be listed. Otherwise the criteria for inclusion is very vague and subjective. Is 'important' a lower test that
428:
The criterion for textbooks on most of the analogous pages are either the classic textbook in the field or the latest most widely used book. The second part at least needs to be updated every once in a while. Be
340:
less useful; they don't provide the intellectual content of gathering things together, which is the point of this list. Knowledge (XXG) shines in computer science; let's keep it that way. --
312:
sciences has been established. There are some people who don't like such articles, but there are more who contribute to them. Contributions to such articles tend to com in bursts.
229:
As I said when one of these lists came to Afd before, the consensus was to add "important". Now you want to remove it. It just shows that AfD debates are often not consistent. --
125:-- re: above, I don't know of any library catalogs that will tell you what papers are important out of all of them :) which is sort of the point of making a secondary list. --
297:
Existence of a wikiproject does not denote or import encyclopedic value or notability upon an article within the subject matter of the project. Wikipolicies prevail.
433:
422:
401:
373:
363:
354:
344:
325:
316:
301:
289:
267:
249:
233:
224:
204:
194:
178:
166:
150:
129:
117:
100:
83:
53:
285:
has not contributed to WP since
January 2006. I do not know why but last year he was trying to make a positive contribution to WP with this project. --
109:
93:
183:
But importance is subjective. It does not MATTER if there's a consensus as to what constitutes importance, since it's still a subjective consensus. -
278:
59:
244:
219:
189:
145:
17:
321:
Sorry, your claim is quite ridiculous. If a publication is not notable for a separate topic, then how can it be "important"? `'
238:
And... who said they were? Can you imagine the trouble we'd be in if results of AfD debates were binding throughout eternity? -
448:
36:
336:
notable topic, etc., that can be applied to lists such as these. Individual articles for people or publications are
447:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
277:. It does not appear when these lists come here that people are aware that they are part of a Wikiproject -
213:
publications, then it should just be renamed to remove "important", but that's not the impression I got. -
370:
360:
341:
126:
397:
50:
350:
understand the importance of proper categorizing of things. "... in computer science", indeed. `'
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
76:
393:
264:
163:
260:
419:
351:
322:
298:
114:
80:
79:. If something or someone is really important, there must be a wikipedia article. `'
239:
214:
184:
159:
140:
97:
96:? All seem like good ideas for articles, though they need cleaned up a bit. ---
369:
partly duplicative; it's another way of viewing the available information. --
286:
230:
201:
175:
430:
313:
282:
418:
a wikipedia article no matter what someone wrote above. And so on. `'
441:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
139:
any list with "Important" as a criterion. Major POV there. -
162:- what is the criteria for inclusion in such a list?
392:. Be diligent, cite sources, use sunscreen, etc. --
108:per nom. In fact, it appears that all the lists in
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
60:List of important publications in computer science
451:). No further edits should be made to this page.
92:. How is this different than everything else in
8:
279:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Science pearls
110:Category:Lists of publications in science
94:Category:Lists of publications in science
75:for such an extremely broad topic as
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
263:and if so, how is it determined?
209:If it's being used to list all
1:
434:02:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
423:23:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
402:21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
374:01:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
364:01:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
355:23:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
345:19:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
326:23:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
317:01:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
302:00:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
290:03:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
268:02:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
250:02:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
234:02:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
225:02:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
205:02:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
195:02:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
179:02:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
167:01:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
151:01:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
130:01:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
118:22:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
101:21:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
84:20:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
54:15:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
468:
390:start over and do it right
71:-ridden, nonmaintainable
444:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
414:breakthrough, there
400:
398:(call me collect)
248:
223:
193:
149:
459:
446:
396:
242:
217:
187:
143:
77:computer science
34:
467:
466:
462:
461:
460:
458:
457:
456:
455:
449:deletion review
442:
247:
222:
192:
148:
63:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
465:
463:
454:
453:
437:
436:
405:
404:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
330:
329:
328:
306:
305:
304:
272:
271:
270:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
243:
227:
218:
197:
188:
169:
153:
144:
134:
133:
132:
103:
62:
57:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
464:
452:
450:
445:
439:
438:
435:
432:
427:
426:
425:
424:
421:
417:
413:
409:
403:
399:
395:
391:
386:
383:
375:
372:
367:
366:
365:
362:
358:
357:
356:
353:
348:
347:
346:
343:
339:
334:
331:
327:
324:
320:
319:
318:
315:
310:
307:
303:
300:
296:
293:
292:
291:
288:
284:
280:
276:
273:
269:
266:
262:
257:
251:
246:
241:
237:
236:
235:
232:
228:
226:
221:
216:
212:
208:
207:
206:
203:
198:
196:
191:
186:
182:
181:
180:
177:
173:
170:
168:
165:
161:
157:
154:
152:
147:
142:
138:
135:
131:
128:
124:
121:
120:
119:
116:
111:
107:
104:
102:
99:
95:
91:
88:
87:
86:
85:
82:
78:
74:
70:
67:
61:
58:
56:
55:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
443:
440:
415:
411:
407:
406:
389:
384:
337:
332:
308:
294:
274:
210:
200:articles. --
171:
155:
136:
122:
105:
89:
73:unreferenced
72:
68:
65:
64:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
333:Strong keep
309:Strong keep
420:mikkanarxi
352:mikkanarxi
323:mikkanarxi
81:mikkanarxi
416:should be
394:MarkSweep
265:WJBscribe
164:WJBscribe
299:Agent 86
283:User:APH
115:Agent 86
408:comment
385:Comment
295:Comment
275:Comment
240:Amarkov
215:Amarkov
211:notable
185:Amarkov
160:Amarkov
141:Amarkov
123:Comment
98:RockMFR
51:W.marsh
371:phoebe
361:phoebe
342:phoebe
156:Delete
137:Delete
127:phoebe
106:Delete
429:bold.
287:Bduke
245:edits
231:Bduke
220:edits
202:Bduke
190:edits
176:Bduke
146:edits
16:<
412:real
338:much
261:WP:N
172:Keep
158:per
90:Keep
431:DGG
314:DGG
69:POV
66:del
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.