Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Puerto Rican scientists and inventors


 * 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. Whilst it clearly needs work, there's no consensus that it should be deleted. Ged UK  12:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Puerto Rican scientists and inventors

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Poorly written overlong essay full of non-notable individuals. The topic itself is laden with original research. Why Puerto Rico? Why random academics? What do these inventors and scientists really have to do with one another? Provides no new information that the articles of the notables provide. Soundsboy (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom. Essay-like brag list. Soundsboy (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are the nom. You shouldn't !v twice, its implied you support delete in the nom.--Cerejota (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Rewrite This is not an acceptable list article, but there could certainly be one, as for other groups. It would, as usual, be limited to those with Wikipedia articles. Normally I'd suggest Boldly replacing the text with such a list, but it would surely be reverted--the simplest way might possibly be to delete the present content.   DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as above. One notes several BLPs included in the list that seem ripe for AfD or prod. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep - It is a "list" 3written within Wikipedia policy. Those mentioned in the article are notable and even though some of those on the "list" do have thier own articles, many don't. The "list" is both informative and educational which is within the funding ideals of Wikipedia, our project, to share our knowledge with others. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rewrite/keep as per DGG. As a member of WP:PUR, I will try to bring it to WP:L standard. If any listed person's article is ripe for AfD, that has no bearing on the list, and should be discussed in each article.--Cerejota (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite to satisfy wikipedia guidelines. Valid list per WP:LISTPURP. No valid deletion criteria listed; apparently just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. RJH (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This would suggest to me you don't know what WP:IDONTLIKEIT means. An essay posing as a list, full of non-notables and puffery for something that has no documentation to support it; yes, that would sound like valid deletion criteria. (A cursory glance of online resources shows zero results for "Puerto Rico" and "inventions"). Soundsboy (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep/Rewrite - per "DGG" and all of the above - Antonio Martin (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - but only for those with Wikipedia articles, replace the mini-bios for one-liners and clean up the lead. Make something similar to List of Welsh inventors or List of Russian inventors. It's an acceptable topic but developed in a way that's incompatible with Wikipedia. Savable. --damiens.rf 14:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep/Rewrite - See no valid reason for it's deletion as it is not violating any key rules in article writing. Possibly adding more notable personalities will be suffice in eliminating any doubts by those who want to delete it.--XLR8TION (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep/Rewrite - While the article currently has many areas for improvement, they are rewritable and savable. I see no reasonable criteria to support deletion.  Once again, going back to the basics, will this help a student in Puerto Rico or elsewhere do his homework?  The answer is a solid "Yes!" and thus, from my point of view, the main reason to keep and make it worthwhile whatever time we invest to improve it. Pr4ever (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Cejota suggested to me that it might well be turned into an article "History of Science in Puerto Rico," or perhaps    "History of Science and Invention in Puerto Rico". This would be in essence be a subject fork, in addition to my original suggestion of keeping this a a proper list in the ordinary sense.   I think this would be done by, first, removing the bios of the people who have article here as notable, and either removing or making articles for the other bios here. Then, by rewriting it properly, they would be simply linked when mentioned.   DGG' ( talk ) 19:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there such a knowledge field as "History of Science and Invention in Puerto Rico"? Have enough people written about that so that we can be our article on reliable sources, or we would have to mash together events characterized as "Science and Invention in Puerto Rico" throughout history in an original research endeavor? --damiens.rf  20:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody has ever written about "Puerto Ricans and invention" except, well, Wikipedians. Which is why this comes off as an essay, not a list of notable people. Soundsboy (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is implicit that there is such a field as it is a descriptive name, not subject to WP:OR - which generally refers to content, not actual articles per se. It is not OR to say History of Science and Invention in the People's Republic of Albonia, one can, however make an argument that the contents might be OR. Since the article doesn't exist, it is a moot point to make now... but I think that in your zeal to have the Puerto Rico topic are conform to the house rules, you are bending the stick too far to the other side and forgetting that WP:IAR is also a policy, as valid as any other policy. In my view, you do a disservice to the encyclopedia by not seeking, as we are advised to do in our deletion policies, alternatives to deletion, when it is obvious that such alternatives are better than deletion. Have some common sense: is an encyclopedia a better encyclopedia because Pokemon meets the rules and is included, and a history of science in a notable cultural area doesn't? Perhaps it would be better if we deleted Pokemon, even if it met every rule, and had articles such as this one, even if their rule conformance is iffy. Encyclopedic content over rules, everytime, is a good policy, and its also the house rules. In addition, countering systemic bias suggest caution with how strictly we apply GNG and other criteria for inclusion - one thing is trying to puff a business or a non-notable band, another is to question basic encyclopedic information of a place simply because language and internet availability skew sourcing availability in what are obvious encyclopedic valuable topics. Hell, History of science in Puerto Rico is of encyclopedic value even if a stub. There are people who disagree with the views I express, but they are not against the rules either, so trying to wikilawyer is futile. We are not unfeeling robots as Jimbo recently said. We do make choices based on common decency, rather than following rules. Not always, not generally, but we do. --Cerejota (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "you do a disservice to the encyclopedia by not seeking, as we are advised to do in our deletion policies, alternatives to deletion..." - You do a disservice to my patience by not noticing I voted keep.--damiens.rf 14:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - to clarify, I mean using the prose parts for another article, I think this is a useful list to have, and are in my userspace making improvements to meet WP:L standards. I do not support moving this to a "History of" article unless it is an alternative to deletion.--Cerejota (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - sounds fine to me, Cerejota. I'll at least create some "stubs" for those who are notable in the list without an article. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Consider, however, that so many of these individuals have no actual "inventions" to their name. It would be extremely difficult to format it like List of Russian inventors if the "invention" column is always blank. A "vaccine" or a scientific breakthrough is not an invention. Soundsboy (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are plenty of articles just like this for listing the scientist, inventors, and sometimes scholars of a race, country, continent, or a religion.  List of African-American inventors and scientists, List of African scientists, inventors, and scholars, List of Cornish scientists and inventors, List of Cornish engineers and inventors, List of Muslim scientists, List of Puerto Ricans in the United States Space Program, List of Scottish scientists, List of Brazilian scientists, List of Russian chemists, List of English inventors, and so on.  We even have a list for people that don't really exist at List of fictional scientists and engineers.  Every nation has awards for its notable scientists and inventors, and this gets coverage obviously.   D r e a m Focus  02:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The examples you give are lists. This AfD is a blurb full of extraneous detail and puffery. I would have no objection if it were a genuine list. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC).
 * I agree. But that is not a reason to delete. That is a reason to improve it to be a list.--Cerejota (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Question What does this article do that categories can't?Curb Chain (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason why all list are superior to categories, is that they list information so you can find what you are looking for. Its always best to list why the person is notable, why achievement they did specifically, then to just have a vague category for them.   D r e a m Focus  17:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.