Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This 4-item short and abandoned list has been tagged since 2015 with a warning that "the list presents item after item without objective published support, including selection of articles from the primary literature unsupported by source establishing their importance (thus constituting WP:OR)". I concur with that assessment, what we have here is an unnecessary ORishly named split from List of important publications in computer science. Concepts of "concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing" are related but there is no reason to group them together for purposes of such a list, which fails WP:LISTN in its narrow and ORish scope (we also don't even have an article on concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing). I'll also note that the article's structure suggests it's related to Dijkstra Prize - well, we have an article about that prize, and it can certainly list works that won it - we don't need a, hmmm, list of some works that won Dijkstra Prize and some works that some editors think should have won it (the current list is composed of four entries, two of which won that prize). Why didn't the creator include other winners, for example? This is pure, and unfinished, OR. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  12:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Whoever created this monstrosity didn't bother to define "important". All the article states is "Some reasons why a particular publication might be regarded as important:". Also delete the other "List of important publications in xxx" linked in the "Important publications in science" template; from a random sampling, they all appear to be equally unsupported by sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Clarityfiend, all of whose comments I'd endorse. This really isn't how to construct an encyclopedia. Not a notable collection. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Delete per nom and everyone else. Having important in a list article's title clearly represents a point of view. Hard to believe this has been an article for over a decade. Ajf773 (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ajf773 And we have ~10 similar lists to deal with, just seartch for "list of important publications"...geology is discussed a bit below already. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:13, 2 February 2023 (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.