Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of engineering science and mechanics topics


 * 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 no consensus. I'm deleting the category though since it's clearly just a way to circumvent a deletion discussion and doesn't function as a category (it's just a copy of the list's contents). - Bobet 10:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

List of engineering science and mechanics topics
This list would be better as a category; easier to maintain and no added value as a list. Also, highly POV as to which topics to be included - creator has already had major change of mind {see here} - arbitrary lists are not encyclopaedic. Delete. BlueValour 14:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Listcruft. --DrTorstenHenning 14:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Lists aren't bad. Wikipedia isn't paper. The list captures potential areas of expansion and thus is useful. I don't see how this particular list is POV (can someone explain that - with a specific topic from this list as an example). I don't see how the user who created the article pruning it has anything to do with the article having a place in wikipedia. Also the list isn't arbitrary it clearly states what it should contain - like hundreds of other "list of X topics" lists - see List of mathematical topics in classical mechanics - even better Category:Mathematics-related lists. Additionally the article was in existance for less than 24 hours before it was prodded - why not give it some time to develop rather than judging it based on the fact it's a new article ? Can anyone give some actual deletion criteria ? Megapixie 15:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - the early Prod was a considerative act; much better to Prod early than wait until the creator has wasted extra time. I suspect that the creator may not have been aware of the power and flexibility of categories. All the creator needs to do is to make a category (hey, I'll do that now) and produce stubs for those that are red linked. It is POV because you have an arguement as to what is included; if this list remains I shall be making changes. With categories you have much more flexibility because x-discipline topics can be in multi-categories. The time that lists have a role is when substantial annotations are made; not the case here. BTW thanks for pointing out that Wikipedia isn't paper; I'd missed that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlueValour (talk • contribs).
 * Comment WP:NOT - I thought you might have missed it. How is it any more POV than a category ? An article can be in two categories - it can also be in two lists - how does it make any difference ? Why can't you produce an example topic from this article whose inclusion in the category is POV ? I'm still waiting for you to produce a stub for Superfluid hydrodynamics that isn't going to get prodded/speedied (A1) for either being too short or inaccurate in about 10 seconds. Can you address my points:
 * What is an example from this list of a subject whose inclusion is POV ?
 * Why is it impossible to include a subject in two list ?
 * Other than your personal feeling, where is the guideline/policy page that says categories are better suited for this purpose ?
 * How are stubs written on the subject of Vortex dynamics, Penetration dynamics, Impact mechanics and Functionally graded materials going to last 10 minutes, when they are written by someone who knows nothing about them ?
 * How are you going to work out what redlink subjects might have been included in the list, if the creator (and other users) had been given time to develop it ?
 * I put "weak keep" - because I don't feel too strongly that the list is actually worth keeping - I just don't think the criteria you are citing for deletion are valid. Megapixie 22:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Category would be much better for this purpose. Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  22:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This list is is not so different in nature from other lists of engineering topics, e.g., List of engineering topics, List of aerospace engineering topics, List of biomedical engineering topics, List of mechanical engineering topics and so on. If this article is to be deleted then so should those be, which would be ultimately unfortunate.  Perhaps, this is an instance of non-experts assuming the mantle of expertise.  The nature of engineering topics is that they are interdisciplinary and therefore not prone to absolute classification.  Such fuzzy boundaries on lists are not unhelpful if the context in which they are generated is clarified.
 * I might add that a dismissive "Listcruft" comment is unhelpful, since as a label it does not add any substance to the arguments that have already been presented, pro or con, by others. --esmhead 12:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, lists and categories serve different functions. No article is "owned" by its creator, so if the current selection is POV knowledgeable editors should feel free to fix it. -- Visviva 15:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - this list has now been copied across to an identical category making the List redundant. I take the point of Visviva that lists can have different functions but that is not the case here and the category has the benefit of being easier to maintain and more likely to stay up to date. BlueValour 23:17, 23 August 2006 (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.