Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in statistics

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 keep. A rename to remove the word "important" from the article is probably a good idea but beyond the scope of this AfD closure to dictate. Shereth 16:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in statistics[edit]

This is a disorganized list that is impossible to define and almost as impossible to maintain. It appears to have been abandoned and now appears to be a repository for 'favorite textbooks.' —G716 <^T·_C> 04:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why do you consider this impossible to define? Why is it any more difficult to define than any of the other "lists of important publications", such as list of important publications in mathematics, list of important publications in computer science, list of important publications in biology, list of important publications in physics, list of important publications in economics, list of important publications in psychology, etc., etc., which you don't seem to have currently on the AfD list? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listing this article because I cannot come up with a reasonable, definition of what "important" is, as applied to statistics. Furthermore, based on the current list of publications, I don't think there is a consensus of a definition. The statistics list appears to be a random collection. I'm looking forward to read others' opinions on what constitutes "important." What's yours? My recollection is that the biology list survived two AfDs (both with no consensus), and I think another list (geography?) failed an AfD. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 07:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in statistics and the other article listed by Michael Hardy are part of The science pearls project. Creating the list should be the first part of the project. In later stage a wiki article should be created for every paper. We are aware of the problem with the inclusion criteria in the current stage and we try to cope with it. The chemistry page is modified by some wikipedian that discuss in depth each paper. In the computer science page I consulted many Turing award winners and other experts. Sometimes there are entries that are not justified but I see it as the evolution of usual wiki article. We don't delete article due to imperfection.APH 06:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree totally - poorly written articles should be fixed, not deleted. But I don't know how to define the fix in a clear, comprehensive way so that this article becomes stable, meaningful and not a listcruft. (And yes, I spent a great deal of time reading the pearls article, and the talk page and the talk pages of some of the other "List of..." articles.) Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 07:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move all articles from "List of important publications in $x$ " to "List of publications in $x$ . The title is redundant. All the entries in the list must be important or notable (as verified by reliable sources) as per WP:N; otherwise it wouldn't merit inclusion at all.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 08:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as per WP:LIST, "important" is a word to avoid when titling lists: "the precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section (see below), not the title. For instance, words like "complete," "famous" and "notable" are normally excluded from list titles, and instead the lead makes clear that that list is complete, or is limited to famous or notable members."--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 08:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd... they used to be called "List of publications in..." and were renamed with the argument that the title should make obvious that these lists do not aim to be comprehensive, but only list historical and groundbreaking works. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications in biology (2nd nomination). --Itub (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to rename all these articles. That is what happened last time. The word "important" was added. Now you want it removed. The discussion on renaming should take place on the talk page of the science pearls project, with editors informed about it happening on the talk page of everyone of these lists. --Bduke (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I find on that page:
Mathematics

Natural sciences

Social sciences

Michael Hardy (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame me. I wasn't involved in the previous discussion. The part on how "important" a publication needs to be in order to be included needs to be discussed and extended upon solely in the introduction of the entry.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 12:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list does need to improve. It is quite likely that all these entries are important. However there is not a single reference that points to the importance, significance or notability of any entry for the discipline. These should be added. This list needs work by people in the field. It does not need deleting. --Bduke (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I suggest removing recent textbooks and focusing the article on important works of historic importance, with third party references attesting their notability. --Itub (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it seems insane to not speedy keep this and work on the overall policy on "List of important publications in X" in a more sensible place, and then apply that to all articles equally. This proposal is not about this article and AfD is not an appropriate place to discuss this. Pdbailey (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lists given at the top by Michael Hardy, especially List of important publications in mathematics, show that good lists are possible. The present article gives criteria for inclusion at the top of the article, so the list is not "impossible to define" (although the definition is subjective). I agree that the article needs cleanup: the descriptions are skimpy and the entries are written in several different formats. The fix is to attract the attention of people knowledgeable about statistics who can provide some more details on the existing entries (and add new ones if needed), not to delete the article. --Uncia (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Defines its inclusion criteria and meets requirements of WP:LIST. May need some cleanup, but that is not a reason for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After removing a few of the more modern text books, the list has many of the key publications in statistics. These lists do need occasional maintenance, but serve as a useful historical view of the subject, it is these key works which define the subject. --Salix alba (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks for drawing attention to the fact that this needed work. That's no reason to delete it though. Qwfp (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like it's beginning to snow. My concerns were apparently unfounded. —G716 <^T·_C> 19:16, 17 August 2008 (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.