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


 * 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   delete. The "keep" !voters have failed to address the issue that this list is inherently WP:OR. There is no objective criteria based on reliable sources that defines which publications are "important" and which are not. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

List of important publications in biology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Inherently POV and original research. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - 1) this is obviously Notable, and acts almost as a portal to many WP articles on biology / biologists (with scope for much more). 2) Criteria (needed, sure) can readily be added. 3) Neutrality can never be guaranteed, but it's at once clear this is a list with wide scope (Anatomy, Insects, Genetics, Origin of Life...) so even if it began with POV bias, it will quickly widen to cover what it should. Famous names from school science lessons are all there. 4) Original Research? Perhaps this refers to the Description and Importance sections which admittedly sound like a university teacher talking. But the list itself is just a list.Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;I don't see that this topic needs to be deleted, although the inclusion criteria should be better clarified. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. First, I think this has been at AfD before and kept. That needs to be checked by the nominator and a link added here. The onus is on the nominator to do this. Second, the criteria for inclusion in these lists has been recently altered by the editors of the Geology list, but the template is included in all such lists. The implications of this change has however not yet been noticed across all lists. This is therefore a bad time to discuss deletion. Let it improve by the deletion of entries that are merely text books. That is the change made on the Geology list. Even without this consideration, the list should be kept. What is needed is that the selection criteria are better sourced. One criteria is "Breakthrough – A publication that changed scientific knowledge significantly". If this is the reason for an entry, the entry should say so and it should have a source that says the publication changed scientific knowledge significantly. Similarly with the other criteria for entry. The list needs improving in this way, not deleting. While it is not necessary for each entry to have its own article, the proportion of entries that do have their own article should be larger. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I will help the nominator. The earlier discussions were under a different name at:-
 * Articles for deletion/List of publications in biology
 * Articles for deletion/List of publications in biology (2nd nomination)

-- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge & redir to List of biology journals. Current title is combative, extremely POV and in violation of several, consensus accepted, naming conventions (WP:POVTITLE for 1). What makes these publications more "important" than those listed at List of biology journals; in the neutral eyes or WP? If something significant happened in the publication past, it should be mentioned in the Article, or as a Note in a List, not the basis for a separation from the rest of similar periodicals. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 19:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. Redirect to List of biology journals, per comment just above. Merge content into History of biology, History of neuroscience, etc., etc., etc. There is no way for editors to determine the boundary between what is and what isn't a "breakthrough" without engaging in WP:OR. It would be much more encyclopedic to discuss these published studies in the course of pages that discuss the breakthroughs as they occurred during the histories of the respective fields. Also, note Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists: normally our list pages are lists of blue-linked Wikipedia articles, not lists of items in text form. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a clear distinction between a scientific journal and a publication, so a redirect is not appropriate. Most of the entries are to books not journal articles. Tryptofish is quite correct that "There is no way for editors to determine the boundary between what is and what isn't a "breakthrough" without engaging in WP:OR". However, we can source others stating this. This is happening in some of the other lists of publications. We just need more editors to look for such sources (It will not be difficult to find one for "The origin of Species"!) and delete entries that do not meet the stated criteria. In case anyone asked why I am not doing that, it is because I am not a biologist and I already do not have the time to work on other lists where I have more expertise to look for sources. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I would have no objection to redirecting it to History of biology instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * After reading Scientific journal ("intended to further the progress of science, usually by reporting new research.") & Scientific publication ("placing the results of one's research into the literature"), I don't buy that there is a "clear distinction between a scientific journal and a publication". WP does not need multiple lists of the same thing, with one apparently being "important" and the other, by implication, being "unimportant". Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a clear distinction between a journal and a publication. Journals, such as those listed in List of biology journals, contain publications, but that list is a list of notable journals in the field. Publications can be journal articles or books and List of important publications in biology is about publications, not the journals they might be published in. So these are no multiple lists about the same thing. There are no items in common. No journals are listed in the publications lists and no publications are in the lists of journals. Both journals and publications can be important and notable, but they are different. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you should clear that up in the Scientific publication Article, 'cause it says everything in a Journal is a publication, making them the same thing to a reader. One being the parent topic of the other, and not 'equal and separate entities' as your suggesting. Just so we all understand, Scientific publication redirs to Scientific literature, so No there is not a "clear distinction between a journal and a publication", even to WP Editors, a publication is just a different word for the same thing. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 19:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not want to drag this out. The context was the proposal "Merge and redirect to List of biology journals. A merge means some content is moved there. That article just lists notable journals. It would be inappropriate to add details of books and journal articles. The editors who edit that list of journals would certainly not welcome us adding a section on the "Origin of Species" by Darwin. You are right that journals contain publications, lots of them in each issue. This article we are discussing lists those publications that are notable. Not all are, even if published in a notable journal. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If they were WP:Notable, they would have their own Article (at a quick glance, I only count 4 with their own). The rest is External links, links to Authors and ISBN numbers. If you feel List of biology journals is a bad target, a merge (merge&delete?) to the individual Authors is fine, but this list is purely POV & OR. The Nominator got it exactly right. In regard to past AfD's; Just because they did something then, does not make it right forever. WP (along with everything in it) needs to continually evolve. (On a sidenote, I would suggest User:Bduke short-circuit a lot of future AFD's by revisiting all the "List of Important ..." of your Move log) Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 02:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, User:Exit2DOS2000 is right, the proposed "important" title is certainly not acceptable. And the list must flatten down to being just a list. Then it can usefully accompany History of biology without being WP:OR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the last Afd resulted in "important" being added to the title to stress that there were criteria for inclusion that defined "important" and that we should not just be adding any publication. Unfortunately this list does not follow that, but that means those entries should be removed, rather than changing the title. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The question has been raised above whether entries to this list should have their own article in order to demonstrate notability. This has been discussed before on the talk page of at least one similar list of publications. The general consensus seemed to be that this had merit but was somewhat over-restrictive. Is there consensus that entries should have their own articles, or there are articles that have a substantial section discussing the publication (that might be forked later into is own article if the article got too large), or it is clearly demonstrated that an article on them could be written by several good sources discussing the importance of the publication. I entirely agree that this list is not satisfactory, but it needs improving by the removal of a great deal of the material, not deleting. It is surely worthwhile to have a list that points to the really notable publications in biology. However the absence here of biology editors is telling. I do not think anyone from the Biology Project has come here to comment, but I could be wrong. I am happy to have a go at a massive pruning, but it would be better if a biologist did it. It would also be good to see whether there would be consensus to keep the article if it was massively pruned down. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  03:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Crusio and I are both biologists by way of neuroscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The estimate above that only 4 of the entries have their own article is quite wrong. I found 15, although in 5 cases the article was not actually linked in this list. I have added such links. There were also 2 that had a fairly extensive discussion of the publication in the article on the author - these were "Competitive exclusion" and "Histoire Naturelle". All the books by Stephen J Gauld have articles and at least one should be added to the list. One is already in the list. I may well have missed some. I suggest that this information is a strong argument to keep the list but clean it up by removing non-notable material. -- Bduke    (Discussion)  04:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to History of biology, per Tryptofish. This list is pure OR. Who decides what is important? What is "important"? --Crusio (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, rd to History of biology, BUT open to non-OR recreation. The list as it stands is entirely OR. It strikes me that a non-OR list could be created, if you could source the opinions of historians of science on what are the landmark publications - On the Origin of Species, Gray's Anatomy, vital journal articles etc. But this isn't such a list. TheGrappler (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely, the fact that "On the Origin of Species" and "Gray's Anatomy" have their own articles, demonstrates that they are notable and not OR. So if it was cut back as I suggest above, what is the difficulty? -- Bduke   (Discussion)  02:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Essentially, picking the correct level of "publication". If you simply go by "do we have an article?" then the page would be almost entirely filled by a list of journals, many of them obscure-but-sufficiently-notable-for-WP. And then there's the problem of "standard" textbooks versus gamechanging ones. The logical level of publication to include in an article like this would be the landmark individual publications: breakthrough articles and, from the pre-journal era, books. I'd suggest (but not demand) the logical format would actually be "Timeline of important publications in biology", even if that wasn't in the title. Obviously if a total rewrite equivalent to a recreated article occurred, I'd switch my !vote to plain "keep" rather than "keep but allow recreation". TheGrappler (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have tried to explain further up, journals contain publications, but are not themselves publications. A publication is something that is authored by one or more people. However, it would be easy enough to make it clear that journals as such be not included. Indeed that point has come up in the past and journal titles were removed. The various lists of journals are for journal titles. What is the problem about "standard" textbooks versus game-changing ones. Standard textbooks do not, as far as I can see, have WP articles. Some game-changing ones do. What I have found interesting in looking at this issue, is the fact that a number of articles exist on scientific publications, but they are not linked from these lists of publications. Only this morning I came across the article on the book on quantum theory by Paul Dirac, a game-changing text if ever there was one. It was not linked on the physics list of publications. Finally, the usual criteria for inclusion in a WP list, is that the item has its own WP article. Increasingly I think that should be the situation here. When I find time, I am going to prune this list down to those that do have articles or sections in articles that might be forked if the article gets large. I will probably miss some but they can be added back. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  03:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the incorrect terminology. But I think you are incorrect re inclusion criteria - "has its own article" is definitely not the "standard standard". Very many lists contain entries that do not possess their own articles, or even redlinks as "articles that should exist but currently don't". Inclusion =/= Self-standing notability, in general. Of course, for this article it might be determine, by consensus, that in this instance such an inclusion criterion would be appropriate. But it's not the default position. TheGrappler (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. The fact that the above discussion uncritically assumes that Gray's Anatomy should be included here says enough. An important textbook: yes. Notable: absolutely. But a landmark publication in biology? Gimme a break. Pure (uncritical) OR, that's what this list is. If ever such a list should be re-created, it should be on the basis of reliable sources that define/list landmark publications. Not some editors here following their own interests/preferences. --Crusio (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I take Crusio's point. Should Gray's Anatomy be included in List of important publications in medicine. It currently is not. I also agree with TheGrappler that many lists include material that does not have its own article, but when that material is challenged, the question of having an article is often raised. It seems that having an article is a sufficient, but not necessary, condition for inclusion. Having an article certainly asserts that an entry in the list is notable. Whether it is appropraite for a particulr list is of course another question. Having an article also means that this is not "some editors here following their own interests/preferences". The only decision they have to make is "Is it a biology publication". Later today (it is early here) I will remove everything that does not assert notability. It will still need some cleanup, but perhaps people can make a clearer judgment then. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me suggest making it, simply, a list of blue links, in the manner of Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. In that case, I might favor keeping, perhaps with a rename that removes the word "important". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think that Gray's Anatomy belongs in the medicine list either. It's certainly been influential (at least in a part of the world, although certainly not everywhere), but it did not really move the science forward the way On the Origin of Species did, or Mendel's work. --Crusio (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, but the list of selected publications is rather subjective. Biophys (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Final comment. I have pruned it down as suggested above to list only those publications that have articles or are well covered in articles. I believe that goes further than some people would want, but it does ensure that the publications are notable and the choice is not original research. I am going to make a few final points before leaving this to the closing admin. First, while I recognise that consensus can change, this list and quite a few similar lists have been around for a long while and many editors have contributed to them and found then useful. Second, this discussion and outcome will have an impact on the other lists. I think only one of the other lits of publications has been deleted and that was not a list of science publications. So in commenting further and in closing this AfD, please take them into account. Third, it is time to decide what we want with all these lists. I do not think that is deletion, but rather to improve them so every entry has a source that asserts their notability or links to an article on the publication where notability is demonstrated. These are useful lists and they could be better. I have left the "descriptions" and "importance" sections, as those arise from the template at the top, which is on all these lists of publications. Whether that is changed, is for another discussion. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  05:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pruning it down has still not corrected the POV or OR problems. The 'List' has no citations. Whom considers these Important & What makes anything not listed (by implication) 'unimportant'. Please read: Common knowledge. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 20:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Those problems remain. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So do I. They are inherent to this list, I fear. --Crusio (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes this list different from List of bicycle brands and manufacturing companies which was one of the first I came across in Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists? That list has only one reference. Is it the "important" in the title? That could be changed, but given that the last AfD added it, I would like a fuller discussion that covered all the lists of science publications. Is it the added text describing the publication, so it is not a bare list? Well, we could prune it down to that, but again, I would prefer a wider discussion because it affects all the other lists. That is why I left those in. I have hesitated to inform editors of the other lists as that might be considered inappropriate. However, there has been a lot of work recently on the Geology list and I do not think any of those editors have commented here. Would someone else care to draw the attention of the editors on all these science lists to this discussion? -- Bduke   (Discussion)  03:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have just come to this discussion yesterday, and am following this discussion closely. I feel it is best to see let this afd run-its-course before deciding on-a-plan-of-action on the other lists, thought I feel exactly that this afd will affect the other lists, specifically the ones without verified references.Curb Chain (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think List of important publications in sociology was the list that was deleted. The deletion debate doesn't tell us much, and I am not sure if there are compilations of notable sociological works as a search turns up nothing, but I do not know if such as done before it was delete.Curb Chain (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't see how this we could ever define "important" as in the sense of "landmark".  So many things fall within the continuum of important and unimportant.Curb Chain (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I was a Keep at the start of this discussion, which has demonstrated that the "important" creates contention amongst us. Bduke has laboured mightily to improve the list and to argue its corner, and indeed the shortened list has its attractions - I feel I might have picked the same ones if I'd tried hard enough. But the venture now seems doomed, and I feel the better course is to rely on the main Biology articles. So sadly Delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As a contributor to the chemistry and physics lists, I feel that these lists do provide a useful guide to the landmark literature in each science. The statistics for this biology list show 1081 page views for August 2011 (before the beginning of this discussion) so there are a significant number of readers who are interested. The information here is different from that in History of biology which describes the evolution of ideas, and I think that integrating the two articles would leave the information about key publications harder to find in a massive article. This list of key publications (articles and monographs) is also quite different from a list of entire biology journals; in fact I would delete the list of journals rather than this list.
 * The weaknesses in the current list system can be dealt with. The 207th textbook in a given subfield should not be included even if today's students use it; only the one or two which defined the subfield historically. Also, the inclusion of each publication should be justified by an external opinion whose source is identifiable. Not "Darwin's Origin of Species is a very important book", but "X has described Darwin's Origin of Species as ....", with a proper reference of course. We can use modern textbooks as sources for the historical documents, since the modern textbooks do have identifiable authors. Dirac66 (talk) 21:08, 30 September 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.