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


 * 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. Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC) There has been some complaint about the close on Col. Warden's talkpage and I don't think closing this as speedy keep is uncontroversial enough to qualify under NAC. That's said there is nothing wrong with the close - two sources have been shown to demonstrate that there is scholarly discussion of the most important publications in maths. This therefore passes our inclusion standard and while the close is a little early, its obvious which way this is going. I'm therefore substituting a "keep" close for a "speedy keep" as there isn't evidence of bad faith in the nomination. Spartaz Humbug! 12:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

List of important publications in mathematics

 * – ( View AfD View log )

cf: Articles for deletion/List of important publications in sociology and Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology; search revealed no compilation of important works in this field Curb Chain (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Related AfDs (four previous, six current): 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep In mathematics, it is important to "read the masters." In fact, as the Wiki article Niels Henrik Abel says: "When asked how he developed his mathematical abilities so rapidly, he replied 'by studying the masters, not their pupils.'" The List of important publications in mathematics article is the only one I know that gathers references to important mathematical works and contains a short description of each of them. I find it very useful and enjoy browsing through the article. Like all Wiki articles, there is room for improvement, but I see no reason to remove this valuable resource. For a discussion on "reading the masters," see: Do you read the masters?--RJGray (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Ample references exist already. The rational for deleting two other articles has nothing to do with this one.   D r e a m Focus  19:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, because this page is incredibly interesting and useful - but it needs to be tidied, organised and to a certain extent redone. "Liber Abaci" by Fibonacci's not in there for a start. And there are several books that are on there probably only because the person posting them up there had an affection for them.--Matt Westwood 20:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You think Fibonacci should be there when others shouldn't be... That is POV, it will always be a POV sloweditwar. With the current speed of light open for discussion I dont think you could find a responsible mathematician that would stand behind any list of "Landmarks" right now. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 05:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if the constancy of the speed of light is disproved, Einstein's work would remain a landmark. Just like Newton's Principia remains a landmark. This is a silly statement. RobHar (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A "landmark" to everyone, except the person that can disprove it! Would it be "Important" to them? Who's Opinion should carry more weight? Should it be moved to a List of unimportant publications in mathematics? Should it be on both? ... that would be up to how the 'Editor of the moment' interprets 'Important'. WP:POV Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone bothers to disprove something, it's that they think it is important enough to begin with. Your arguments are nonsensical. Newton was wrong, but physics would not have been able to advance without his work. His work influenced everyone. It was a landmark and remains a landmark. Similarly with Einstein. The people that disproved Newton still were heavily influenced by his work and cannot (reasonably) claim his work was not a landmark. The same would be true of Einstein's work. Also, "List of unimportant publications in mathematics" would be a speedy delete as it would by definition not meet notability guidelines. Furthermore, if an "editor of the moment" were to remove Einstein's work as soon as someone disproves it, it is clear from the amount of "keep" support on this page that the consensus would be that that editor was wrong, and the Einstein entry would be restored. Again, your arguments are nonsensical. RobHar (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you... that is where the OR & POV is. Editors deciding what belongs and does not, even though there would be a Cite for both. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The presence of all content on wikipedia is decided by editors. It's a question of notability. Here, specifically, it's: "Is this paper notably an important paper? Or is there just some splinter group (or no one) that believes it's important?" These questions can be answered through source citation. How does your argument allow any wikipedia articles to exist? RobHar (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Content on wikipedia is decided by Citations. WP:LISTN "the grouping or set" needs to be discussed in a Cite. There is no Cite pointing out why these specific publications as a group or set are "important". No respected mathematician is going to say "X is important and Y is not", nor should the 'pedia be doing it. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 02:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I mention below, Grattan-Guinness' book addresses the fact that this "group or set" is notable. There are other such sources, but I'm not going to dig them up right now. Also, many very well-respected mathematicians say that certain papers are important (only some very well-respected mathematicians mention that others are not). RobHar (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Exit2DOS" cites WP:LISTN. I quote from that page: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.  In other words, what we need is to cite a source saying that the topic of important publications in mathematics is notable.  That's easy: Use David Eugene Smith's A Source Book in Mathematics.  We don't (according to the quoted section) need an actual published list (although Smith's book provides one) let alone a list that includes everything listed in the Wikipedia list-article. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What's your point? --Matt Westwood 13:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)That


 * Comment Of course, there are sources compiling important works in mathematics. For example, Ivor Grattan-Guinness's well-respected Landmark writings in Western mathematics 1640–1940. Also, even with such compilations some level of editorial discretion need be allowed, otherwise you end up with shenanigans like in the article College town where one of the editors outright refuses to deflect from the one, unique, source that studies college towns in the US. Would the nominator be satisfied if every article that appears in this list has a reference claiming it to be important? Or does the nominator really want this list to be a regurgitation of already published compilations? If so, which compilations are notable enough to have their contents dumped onto this page? RobHar (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. For something to be OR it is not sufficient that it is not currently sourced in the article; this requires that it cannot be sourced because the sources don't exist. I am convinced that for most, and probably all, reliable sources can easily be found that report that the publication is important. I looked at the first item of the list, and here are the first four Google book search results for that item, with quotations:
 * Perhaps there are a few on the list whose reliably-sourced importance is not so easily ascertained, but that is not a reasonable argument for deleting the whole list. --Lambiam 20:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there are a few on the list whose reliably-sourced importance is not so easily ascertained, but that is not a reasonable argument for deleting the whole list. --Lambiam 20:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there are a few on the list whose reliably-sourced importance is not so easily ascertained, but that is not a reasonable argument for deleting the whole list. --Lambiam 20:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there are a few on the list whose reliably-sourced importance is not so easily ascertained, but that is not a reasonable argument for deleting the whole list. --Lambiam 20:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there are a few on the list whose reliably-sourced importance is not so easily ascertained, but that is not a reasonable argument for deleting the whole list. --Lambiam 20:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * delete. Although a few entries are sourced the majority aren't and even some that have references are to the work itself. But even if more references could be found the criteria on which publications are included is almost entirely subjective: the compilation is not based on a list but on individual editors adding books and papers they think interesting. It has some very dubious entries and some serious omissions (no Chinese works?), but that's probably just my opinion. As such, as a collection and compilation of editors' views, it does not need an article.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 21:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The criterion is, of course, that these publications are generally considered important publications by experts. This is so obvious that we may have forgotten to spell it out. These pages for the various WikiProjects give even stricter criteria: publications that are seminal in the sense that they created a new field, or changed scientific knowledge significantly, or otherwise significantly influenced the world – something that can equally be ascertained from reliable sources, but this has, nevertheless, not spared them from being visited by the Angel of Deletion. --Lambiam 22:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "...are generally considered important publications by experts." nibbles at the edges of WP:Common knowledge, but it just does not make it all the way there. Its an opinion. Please, find a Cite that person X explains why publication Y is important in fact form (not just their opinion). Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? So, if Gauss says something is important, you're going to say sorry, C.F., show me the study that shows this is important? Anyway, what if the lede explicitly stated that these articles are, in the opinion of experts in mathematics, considered important and each entry had corresponding references from reliable sources? It seems like that would address your concern. RobHar (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No not at all, because This list would still be an opinion piece, and that is not what the Wiki is about. However I would want to make a Cite of that persons opinion and put it in the Article about what they are talking about. The key words you just mentioned are "in the opinion of " ... any list full of nothing but opinions is just that ... POV slanted opinions. Should we also have a List of unimportant publications in mathematics for everything that does not make this list but still has an Article? Whom decides what goes where? List them all or don't list them at all, let the Articles explain the topic and the Reader decide for themselves. That is what the wiki is about, not about deciding what is and is not Important for people. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 05:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You do realize that every scientific fact is simply the opinion of the experts, right? RobHar (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize that every scientific fact is simply the opinion of the experts. So too do I realize I am typing this message too you.  Our job on wikipedia is not to make opinions.Curb Chain (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not our job to present our opinions as editors as facts on a wikipedia article/list. That is why I suggest we report on other people's opinions as expressed in reliable sources. That is our job on wikipedia. There are then restrictions on which other people have notable opinions. I suggest that reliable sources written by well-respected mathematicians are notable opinions. Where our opinions as editors enter in wikipedia is in determining which sources, in our opinions, are notable. If you disagree with this last sentence, then I don't know what to tell you, but wikipedia is not what you think it is. RobHar (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Exit2Dos, please don't use "whom" where "who" is clearly correct and "whom" is not. "The boy sees him"; "He sees the boy"; just as "he" is used in subjects and "him" in objects, so also with "who" and "whom".  If you would say "He decides" and not "Him decides", then don't write "Whom decides".  You've done that already at least twice on this page. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you really think an English Lesson is appropriate in AfD. Us Talk space please. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The stated deletion rationale (as seen on those other AfDs), that we can't have a list here that is not sourced in its entirety elsewhere or else we would be committing original research, is completely absurd as it would rule out almost all lists on Wikipedia. and the remaining few ones that are copied from elsewhere would be copyvios. The standard rationale for inclusion on a list of "notable X's", namely having an independent Wikipedia article, applies perfectly well here as well. In the absence of a valid reason for deletion, we should keep this and all similar lists. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator has not actually given a policy-based reason for deletion.  Comparison with other deleted pages is irrelevant as per WP:OTHERSTUFF.  This article has plenty of references, and can be improved if necessary.  Jowa fan (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Whom says what is 'Important' (and by implication 'Unimportant'). Unless there are multiple reliable Secondary sources verifying the list, it is pure POV and OR. I am not going to repeat myself Ad infinitum, all my reasoning is in the prior List of important AfD. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have notified User:Sandstein and User:King of Hearts (the closing editors for the sociology and biology discussions) and WikiProject Lists of this discussion. Jowa fan (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:IAR, does this article improve the quality of the encyclopaedia: yes in my view. We have a collection of the landmark texts in mathematics, it the past it has some cruft but these have now been weeded out. Yes the article does need some secondary sources but not outright deletion.--Salix (talk): 03:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - the deletion rationale for the other two lists mentioned in the nomination seems to be that a list of "important" publications is in herently OR. However, the inclusion criteria at the head of this list explicitly say "An entry in this list should include citations for statements about the importance of the publication". The fact that some items on the list do not yet have such citations is a case for cleanup, but not for deletion. Thus the OR argument has been addressed. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Its a Template; and its on all of the "List of Important " lists (even the deleted ones). It is still OR as to what "important" is. Whom says this list is "important" ? Its a collection of what Editors think is "important", not an actual list from a WP:Secondary source. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Every single article on Wikipedia is a collection of what editors think is important. If you're going to use the term "original research" to describe such decisions, then the logical conclusion is to delete all Wikipedia articles.  But the page WP:OR does not support such a viewpoint.  Quoting from that page: Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Jowa fan (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is this List collected from? Where is the group or set talked about? No Source has pointed out a List of "Important ". I would even be satisfied if the Source only had 50% of whats Listed. All that has been said about individual entries is: it's Obvious and it's Common knowledge, both are invalid reasons to keep an exclusionary and arbitrary grouping. Show us a reliable Secondary source that has a 'List of important '. Honestly, I would even be happy with a List open to All possible entries, but as this currently stands it's an open invitation for a List of unimportant publications in mathematics with everything that the 'Editor of the moment' does not feel is important enough. List everything the wiki has, or do not have a List at all. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been mentioned a couple of times on this page already that the book by Grattan-Guinness is a possible source and contains several of the articles on the list. I am not going to count to see if half of the entries appear in this source. RobHar (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is one kind of the lists a curious reader of an encyclopedia would be interested in in furthering his understanding and knowledge on a particular subject. That we don't have another source (or more) giving exactly the same list that we are going to compile is not only a reason of avoiding copyright infringement but also the intricate matter of compiling survey texts: as long as material is notable it should be mentioned, under consideration of adhering to a NPOV. What this article needs is nothing but a precise inclusion criterion and reliable secondary sources for each entry stating its particularly notability. Cleanup is also no criterion for deletion. Nageh (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep since no grounds for deletion are given. This is the only time I've seen a deletion proposal that doesn't mention any particular reason for deletion. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There are six related articles like this opened right now, with the same rational being repeated on them all.
 * List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing
 * List of important publications in geology
 * List of important publications in mathematics
 * List of important publications in medicine
 * List of important publications in networks and security
 * List of important publications in theoretical computer science
 * And the argument seems to be the same everywhere, that being the word "important" being used.  D r e a m Focus  09:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was brought here by a thread over at WT:WPM, and I was expecting to see compelling arguments to delete this on the grounds of WP:OR, which I came prepared to refute.  Happily, I see no compelling deletion arguments at all.  The article has many cleanup issues, and I think it needs to be about half of its current length, with better sources.  However, my reasons for voting keep are: (1) In some form, this list clearly satisfies a necessary niche in the encyclopedia (though perhaps "important" doesn't do the topic justice: "landmark" might be a better choice).  (2) The claim of WP:OR fails to identify any specific entries on the list.  Looking at the list, I have no doubt that it might contain some original research, but I think there can be no serious argument that there is a basic core there that is worthy of inclusion.  At the very least, entire books have been written that will attest to the significance of Euclid's Elements, Newton's Principia, or Gauss's Disquisiones.  Furthermore, books like Ivor Grattan-Guinness's "Landmark writings in western mathematics" could be used as a general source for much of the article if necessary.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, since no argument for deletion has been advanced. —Mark Dominus (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Alright, I'm going to go way out on a limb and try to help make the argument for deletion. As nearly as I can guess (and "guess" is the appropriate word here), the statement "search revealed no compilation of important works in this field" may have been intended to be understood as a reason for deletion.  If so (a substantial "if") then the proposer seems to want published refereed sources saying the important publications are important.  I think there can be little doubt that such sources can be found.  I wonder if the search consisted of entering some search terms into Google and not immediately finding a published list.  If so, the proposer should be tarred and feathered, and so it might almost seem as if I'm out of line speculating that all he did was Google.  How dare I suggest that he didn't visit all the world's major libraries looking for sources?  However, he did give us only the phrase "search revealed no compilation of important works in this field", about which we must try to guess whether he intended it as his grounds for deletion.  And only a gratuitously generous person trying to help him would dig so deep to find something to say in favor of his proposal.  The thing to look for is obviously not a published refereed source titled "list of important publications in mathematics".  Rather it is books, not only on the history of mathematics, that mention the importance of such publications.  For example, consider Riemann's famous 8-page paper in which he first introduced the famous hypothesis.  One should not look for a published paper called "important publications in mathematics" that includes this.  One should look instead to any of the many books and many tens of thousands of published research papers on the Riemann hypothesis that cite that work.  For example, one could cite Harold Edwards' book on the Riemann zeta function, or any of many other books on that topic, like the one by Titchmarsh.  And one would do similar things with other important publications in the list.
 * It's been a while since we had one of these completely crackpot deletion proposals; we used to see them all the time. ("This article is about math, so it should be deleted.....") Michael Hardy (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since we had one of these completely crackpot deletion proposals; we used to see them all the time. ("This article is about math, so it should be deleted.....") Michael Hardy (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Below we see one of the entries. Notice that it cites a work by Allan Clark.  This is one of a number of such citations.  Is this what the person proposing deletion reports that a search revealed not to exist?  The search need have gone no further than I did in order to find this.
 * * Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī (820)
 * Description: The first book on the systematic algebraic solutions of linear and quadratic equations by the Persian scholar Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī. The book is considered to be the foundation of modern algebra and Islamic mathematics.  The word "algebra" itself is derived from the al-Jabr in the title of the book.
 * Michael Hardy (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Michael Hardy (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Michael Hardy (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Summary of my conclusions: Each entry in the list should have an authoritative source attesting to its notability. But that does not mean that we need a single authoritative source that lists all of them.  A separate on for each item in the list is enough. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. A List such as this needs a reliable secondary source discussing the "group or set"(WP:LISTN). That is what gives the Topic Notability. Individual Cites would only denote that individual works are WP:Notable. May I point out an example, List of important operas, every entry is individually Cited, however they are also listed on at least 5 of 9 reliable secondary source lists of "Important Works". That makes for multiple (5) published works calling each entry Important before WP does so and adds it to a "List of Importent ". Does this list have any such outside source listing these items as "important" or are we to believe that "its WP:OBVIOUSLY important & WP:Common knowledge"? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 19:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep with explanations. This and related articles have clearly been brought to AfD in the sincere belief that they should be deleted per WP:NOR. In one instance, a closing admin essentially discounted editors' comments, because of his view that such articles are "inherently WP:OR". I disagree: in my view, which is clearly shared by many other editors here, such an application of WP:NOR is misguided.
 * The disagreement, however, makes it all the more important to communicate and articulate the basis for our views, rather than point the finger or engage in confrontation. Here, I will attempt to explain the position as I see it.
 * Let me start with what I hope is some common ground. First of all, if an article contains (or is challenged for containing) original research, this does not automatically mean the article should be deleted. Instead, it needs to be fixed: each such challenge should be answered either by demonstrating that the material is not original research (by providing sources for it), or by removing the material from the article. If nothing remains, then deletion is a fait accompli.
 * Secondly, WP:NOR reflects the fact that Wikipedia is a tertiary source: it is an encyclopedia, not a place to advance an argument. However, this has a flip side: Wikipedia is not a primary or secondary source, nor a textbook, nor a collection of indiscriminate information, nor is it Wikisource. It aims to provide the "sum(mary) total of human knowledge" to as wide a readership as possible, in as accessible a way as possible. Doing this requires both compiling information and selecting it. This is not an easy task: it requires asking "for whom are we writing, what are we trying to achieve, what makes for a better encyclopedia, what harms it?" These are not questions that can be answered by machines: they require human insight, editorial judgment, and reasoned discussion to reach agreement.
 * Almost all Wikipedia articles compile information from multiple selected sources. This involves editorial choices to include or exclude material: it is not, in itself, original research to do this, but an essential part of what an encyclopedia is. Original research arises when such material is used to advance a novel argument or provide a novel synthesis. I hope no editor would argue that an article with more than one major source is automatically OR by synthesis, or that the selection of a handful of representative sources is automatically biased.
 * With the above in mind, consider the argument that "reliable secondary sources do not compile such lists". Wikipedia is not a secondary source, but aims to be the best tertiary source it can be. Reliable secondary sources do not have categories, nor disambiguation pages, nor do they have set index articles such as USS Enterprise. Wikipedia compiles lists that are useful to readers, because they contain notable content, with notable connections and provide a navigational aid complementing the category system. Examples of lists which I suspect other sources do not have include:
 * List of television series canceled before airing an episode
 * List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles
 * In many cases, lists on Wikipedia consist of all notable examples of something: we do not have "List of notable X" or "List of famous X" (except as redirects), because the notability limitation is implicit in what we do. However, even in these articles, editorial judgment and selection takes place.
 * List of characters in Family Guy (appearing in more than one episode)
 * List of Star Wars characters (prominent in the Star Wars franchise)
 * List of recurring characters in Futurama (unclear what qualifies as recurring)
 * List of titles of works based on Shakespearean phrases (incomplete, selection criteria unclear)
 * List of most popular given names ("top ten" is the selected inclusion criterion)
 * In some cases, it is necessary to further qualify or limit the list content, so that it doesn't become an indiscriminate collection of information. Examples include:
 * List of major cities in U.S. lacking Amtrak service (what is major? what counts as a city?)
 * List of major biblical figures (there are thousands of insignificant figures)
 * List of landmark court decisions in the United States (listing all notable ones would be entirely unhelpful and indiscriminate)
 * List of significant religious sites (similarly)
 * List of common English usage misconceptions (etc.)
 * List of common coordinate transformations (similar, more mathematical)
 * Editors appear to be concerned that there are "no objective criteria" for inclusion in such lists. The same concern applies equally to many categories. However, that is good news for Wikipedians! It means our work cannot be automated: intelligent human discussion is needed to determine what is a reasonable scope, and what will be most useful to our fellow human beings who read what we write.
 * That does not mean it is a free-for-all!
 * In the first place, the answer to the question Who determines what is "important" is: reliable sources do. Editorial judgment is secondary to what reliable sources have to say: they set the threshold for inclusion. If reliable sources do not indicate that a publication is significant, then it should not be included. If some do, then the discussion can begin.
 * In the second place, we do not have lists on everything or anything, any more than we have such categories. There is no Category:Atheist mathematical publications nor a corresponding list. In order to have a List of X publications in mathematics, we must establish that quality X is relevant, and discussed in reliable secondary sources. That is not the same thing as asking for reliable secondary sources to compile such lists, as that is not what secondary sources do.
 * In the case at hand, I am amply convinced that reliable secondary sources, in particular history of mathematics books (including the references Mathematics of the 19th century, A history of algebraic and differential topology, 1900-1960, Number Theory: An approach through history in the article), are deeply concerned with significant publications in mathematics. A list of such publications is immeasurably useful to readers, and it makes absolutely no sense to delete such encyclopedic content.
 * Apart from the details in the last point, my arguments apply to all of the related AfD discussions. In particular, I think there is a case for deletion review of Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology: however, it may be more productive to take a more positive approach, userfying the old article, and using the deletion decision as an opportunity to create a better list, with fully sourced content. Similarly, I think sociology editors should take seriously Sandstein's invitation to "[recreate] this list in a form that does not require original research". Geometry guy 22:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. In giving examples above, I am fully aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I am not merely giving these examples to show that they do exist, although this already illustrates some consensus; I am also noting that in many cases, they should exist and are illustrative of what we do here.
 * PPS. I am happy with any rename of "important" to "significant", "major", "landmark", or anything else limiting the list to those publications which reliable secondary sources highlight as important in the development of mathematics.
 * Your small PPS indicates exactly how futile such a list will be. Once we have a list of significant publications in mathematics, we will have list of major publications in mathematics and list of landmark publications in mathematics just because the sources don't use the word "important".  Oh, and don't tell me Wikipedians will be interpreting weather the source means important.Curb Chain (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My small PPS was a mostly irrelevant afterthought about the word "important", which seemed to be causing (unnecessary) concern to editors. I've no intention of telling any editor anything that they cannot discover for themselves by stepping back and thinking. Thanks for taking the time to read and think about my comments. Geometry guy 23:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: It is a fundamental principle of wikipedia that the editors are capable of determining issues of notability. In this instance, the question that arises is "Is this paper notably important?". This kind of criterion for inclusion on a list is explicitly provided in WP:LSC, which in fact goes on to state that: "Most of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment." If the rationale for deletion is that this list can't be compiled without OR, then WP:LSC contradicts this rationale in this instance because it is indeed possible to assess the notability of mathematics writings through secondary sources. Furthermore, as a side comment, the notability of the list itself, per WP:LISTN, is substantiated by books such as Ivor Grattan-Guinness's well-respected Landmark writings in Western mathematics 1640–1940. RobHar (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The very first sentence of WP:LSC "Selection criteria should be unambiguous" ... "Important" is ambiguous! Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 02:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it says that the selection criteria should be unambiguous not the page title. If all that's needed is to specifically write in the lede the selection criteria that has been discussed here, then we don't need to be going through an AfD, just a short discussion on the talk page. RobHar (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Selection criteria are spelled out in more detail in the lead: Topic creator; Breakthrough or Influence. Most of the works here fall into the first two of these. Those versed in mathematics will easily see that this is the case and recognise the big names and the big ideas. A weakness of the list is the the landmark nature of say Analysis situs by Henri Poincaré (under Topology) may not be apparent to the casual reader.--Salix (talk): 07:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So Wikipedians are determining who gets on the list, not reliable sources?Curb Chain (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Aaaaah I see... "Those versed in mathematics will easily see..." so the rest of us are to assume that "its WP:OBVIOUSLY important & WP:Common knowledge"? I challenge that then. Please find a reliable secondary source that calls these (group or set) Important. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 19:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How is "important" ambiguous?  Maybe you need to look up "ambiguous" in a dictionary.  "Ambiguous" means it can have any of a well-defined discrete set of possible meanings.  Maybe you meant "vague" or the like. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, he meant "ambiguous", as has been discussed by me and in this discussion elsewhere.Curb Chain (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you've discussed it elsewhere in this discussion, it's been deleted. Can you answer my question?  I asked how "important" is ambiguous.  "Ambiguous" means theres a specific discrete set of two or more meanings it could have.  Please list them. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "important" can be ambiguous because it can mean "benchmark", "landmark", "significant". Do the citations provided actually use the word "important"?  I don't see how we could agree on inclusion criteria for this article.Curb Chain (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * These are synonyms. A word having synonyms does not make it ambiguous. And if you have problems with the presently agreed-upon inclusion criterion for this article, then please discuss them on the talk page of the article; don't start an AfD discussion for that. --Lambiam 06:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's very clear that there will be no consensus on that. I did start an afd because I know there will be no agreement on these words and synonyms.  This is a well intended, but futile, effort, and I can look at the talk pages and see that.Curb Chain (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, may main argument is here. --Pgallert (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Geometry guy. Useful, encyclopedic and can be adequately sourced. —Ruud 08:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps much more than in most subjects, in the mathematical sciences Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the participation of lots of people with professional expertise. A number of those people have commented here.  "Curb Chain" and "Exit2DOS" are users I don't recall ever commenting in recent years at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics.  Could those two users explain the nature of their backgrounds in the field? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Does different degree make me any less capable of interpreting WP:Policies and guidelines than anyone else? Am I not permitted an opinion because of some arbitrary reason as laid out by yourself? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 19:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody has suggested you're not permitted an opinion. However, when I see someone having claimed that they did a search for a published list of important publications in mathematics, I might assess such a claim by an expert differently from the way I'd assess such a claim by someone with no knowledge of the subject.  Knowing how to search for such a thing requires expertise.  (I haven't done any such search myself because I'm not convinced there is a present need for it.  If we cite a separate published source attesting the importance of each entry in the list, I think that's enough.) Michael Hardy (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Policies do not prevent you from using your brain. (No insult intended.) The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to collect and further the sum of human knowledge, and this is exactly what such lists can help with. Nageh (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFULL (Arguments to avoid) does not supersede WP:V ((Policy) & WP:RS (guideline) Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 21:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is offtopic and note User:JohnBlackburne believes also in deletion of this article. Note also that WikiProject Mathematics was canvassed so you see so many biased opinions on this discussion.Curb Chain (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the excellent proof that policies do prevent you from using your brain. There is a more complete argument at one of the other AfD, which I copy here: "It is us who are writing this encyclopedia, and we are not following somebody else's policies and guidelines but ours, and if the majority of us seems to come to the conclusion that these lists are indeed helpful then, if no other argument can convince you, you may have a look at WP:IAR and think again. (Of course, I'm not under the illusion that this will convince you.)" Nageh (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Two comments: (1) I don't see why mathematicians should be considered "biased" in the assessment of a mathematics list. If anything, their expert input should be valued, as opposed to the usual clowns who seem to lurk at AfD who seem the least qualified to make any kind of deletion decision that doesn't involve acne treatments, heavy metal bands, Pokemon, or video games.  Notifying the appropriate WikiProject is definitely not considered to be canvasing, if you want a deletion debate that includes a variety of informed opinions.  (2) Citing policies without specifically relating them to the topic under discussion is not an argument.  Putting aside the issue of whether there is OR in the current article (which is not grounds for deletion), whether the standards of citation are up to scratch (which is not grounds for deletion) why is it that such a list cannot in principle be sourced or written in a way that meets our core principles?  (Please do not respond in terms of a word-salad of policy links, thank you.)  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * insulting "the usual clowns who seem to lurk at AfD" does not improve my opinion of what is lacking in this List Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but referring to notifying the appropriate Wikiproject as "canvassing" is just wrong. (Our deletion policy even recommends this.)  It's as though the opinions of editors who are actually knowledgable about a subject are unwanted.  Hey, the teenagers are supposed to be the ones making deletion decisions, right?  After all, they're the ones who are "unbaised"!   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Re WP:V and WP:RS: These are both about acceptable content in an article, and not about its structure. Missing citations are not a criterion for deletion either, but for cleanup. A more valid argument that has been brought up is WP:LISTN. Yet, any history book within the field would cover its notable publications, and presenting them in list form (of multiple books) is a matter of summarizing and making content accessible. In fact, accessibility of content is a compelling argument for keeping this list, independently of whether you accept history books as compilations of notable works or not. Nageh (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you actually read the whole conversation, I have already mentioned it, twice. If you would care to help, you could add such Cites as you mention. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not exactly a reply to my argument. My argument was that accessibility is a compelling argument for keeping independent of whether you accept history books as establishing the notability of the list as such. (And yes, I will provide sources, but not today.) Nageh (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: Would you clarify, you accept one history book as indication for the notability of the list as such while the existence of a book on the history of mathematics is obvious? Nageh (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science pearls-related deletion discussions.


 * Questions regarding notability as a group/set: With respect to WP:LISTN, the notability requirement for a "list" on wikipedia must be that the "topic ... has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Here are some questions:
 * First off, can I ask the nominator, User:Curb Chain, if this is the policy with respect to which this list has been nominated for deletion? If so, it would have been very helpful to say that. The phrase "search revealed no compilation of important works in this field" does seem to allude to that (now that I know about WP:LISTN). However, what the nominator seems to indicate is that the two other AfD's referenced are where one should look for the rationale of this AfD. There, however, an argument of "inherent OR" is what was suggested and was the reason for deletion. Which is it? Is it both?
 * Secondly, with respect to WP:LISTN, it has been mentioned 5 times so far that Grattan-Guinness has a book covering the years 1640–1940 (in the "Western world"). Neither of the two deletion advocates have responded to this assertion. So, User:Curb Chain and User:Exit2DOS2000, is that kind of work suitable in your opinion? I realize that it only covers part of what this list is, but, for example, would this kind of source be enough for a "List of important(/whatever term doesn't offend you) publications in western mathematics from 1640–1940", in terms of WP:LISTN? I'm not going to try to find more general sources without knowing what you think. RobHar (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes to all your questions. And yes, please try to find more sources.Curb Chain (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If your going to limit the content of the List to only what is in that book, please, add it so we can evaluate it. More books that say "These are Important" is better (see my below comment re:List of important operas), but at this point, anything is an improvement. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would like Exit2Dos2000 to please articulate a clear position on why WP:N suggests that this article should be deleted, including the kinds of searches (library, Google, etc.) that has led him or her to this conclusion (WP:BEFORE). The insinuated snippets inserted after others' comments above have not made this case at all clear to me. On the contrary, it seems to me that the topic grouping ("Important publications in mathematics...") is evidently notable, based on any number of searches.  There are entire books on this subject (see comments already made).  Other sources include Grattan-Guinness' several books on this topic and Bellman's text on mathematical classics (in analysis).   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The topic of this List (List of important ) has not been addressed in reliable secondary sources so far. I have been told that many people here have eminent qualification is this and that, but WP is not based on "Just believe the Editors word for it because it is obvious & common knowledge amongst a select group" or "person X says person Y's book is important". We are a Encyclopedia that requires WP:Verifiable sources of information. For this Topic (List of important publications in mathematics) to be WP:Notable, we have to have a Cite saying that the List is. So far, nothing had been added to this List that says "These, collectively, are important as published by this person". I again point to List of important operas as a target to aim towards. It is not enough to just say what the qualifications are to get into this list, someone else must say & publish it, preferably more than 1 so as to counter the appearance of Cherry Picking sources. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the deletion discussion for "List of important publications in mathematics", not "List of important ". Can you please provide evidence (e.g., Google searches, library searches, etc.) that support your contention that there are no reliable secondary sources that identify important mathematics publications, collectively, as an important group?  So far, other editors who have conducted such searches have evidently come to the opposite conclusion as you, so I would like to see you try to back this up with specifics, rather than general policy arguments.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The main rationale for deleting this article is that there are no reliable sources that establish the importance of this list as a group - but Geometry guy has identified three such sources that are cited in the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think everyone in this discussion wants Wikipedia pages to meet a high standard. It seems to me that there is potential for agreement on criteria for acceptable lists of publications, and these criteria are pretty much the same for all the lists. I invite everyone to visit the revamped Science pearls Wikiproject and discuss the criteria on the talk page. I would like to make a clear statement on the WikiProject page that could be used by all the lists. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * List of important operas is indeed an excellent example of a list, but what about List of business theorists, or List of bicycle manufacturing companies, both of which are mentioned directly in Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. I do not suppose they would have been listed there if they failed our policies and guidelines. Those two lists have only one source between them and that does not refer to the topic of the list. So could those who are quoting WP:LISTN please indicate what should be done with those lists. It might help us to understand the general applicability of that guideline, which is very unclear to me and your interpretation seems a long way from current practice in creating lists. In fact I have to say that over a period of 5 years on wikipedia looking at AfD on a regular basis, I have never seen that argument used as a reason for deleting a list. I also just found the discussion that lead to the wording of WP:LISTN at Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists. Two lists that are mentioned there, List of longest undammed rivers and List of birds, would be deleted by the arguments used to delete this list. Neither have a reference in the lede. I do not think any one of the four lists I have mentioned should be deleted and I do not think anyone does, so why is this mathematics list different, or indeed the other related lists. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Search HAS revealed compilations of important works in this field. The whole rationale for deletion appears to be "search revealed no compilation of important works in this field".  Here are two such compilations:
 * Landmark writings in Western mathematics 1640–1940 by Ivor Grattan-Guinness
 * A Source Book in Mathematics by David Eugene Smith
 * Curb Chain, the person proposing deletion, has admitted on his talk page that his search consisted ONLY of entering "important publications in mathematics" into Google. That is the most superficial search for anything that has ever been done.  I can report that a search failed to find the Holy Grail: I looked in a drawer and it wasn't there!!
 * At Notability, we find this:"A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources [...] The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" In this instance I think the individual items do have to be independently notable because of the nature of the topic. That notability can be attested by a separate cited source for each one.  The concern here, is that independent sources must say that the topic (list of important publications in mathematics) is notable, NOT that the individual items are notable.  That is what is required by the quoted notability guideline.
 * So let us add to the article those two books attesting to the notability of the topic of important publications in mathematics. Then Curb Chain may be expected to withdraw his deletion proposal. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Geometry Guy. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - the topic is notable, as shown by the existence of such works as the Source Book in Mathematics (among others) already mentioned in this discussion. Individual entries may or may not appear in that exact work, but that is not required, only that the topic itself be covered as a whole in reliable secondary sources, and it has been. The nominator's rationale that "search revealed no compilation of important works in this field" has been soundly disproven. Lady  of  Shalott  03:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Explanation break
This an article that is very easy to explain why it is failing it's inclusion criteria.

Let's look at the citation provided by. Searching for the word "important" on that page comes up with one instance.

It cites "2." in ==References==. The sentences that are cited are:
 * "Description: Otherwise known as The Great Art, provided the first published methods for solving cubic and quartic equations (due to Scipione del Ferro, Niccolò Fontana Tartaglia, and Lodovico Ferrari), and exhibited the first published calculations involving non-real complex numbers." of Ars Magna
 * "This work opens with a study of the calculus of finite differences and makes a thorough investigation of how differentiation behaves under substitutions" of Institutiones calculi differentialis cum eius usu in analysi finitorum ac doctrina serierum

I could tag these sentences with failed verification. This list is a blatant opinion piece chosen by Wikipedian editors on what is a "master" work and deeming them important (with no specific criteria) for inclusion into this article.Curb Chain (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you tagged the first sentence with "failed verification", the tag would quickly be removed. The two facts mentioned (Cardano published methods for solving cubics and quartics, and used complex numbers) are clearly supported by the source. Every mathematician knows that these are significant achievements, and ample grounds for asserting importance.  One could perhaps ask for further citations (e.g. to spell out the fact that complex numbers are important in mathematics), but such a request would be a petty instance of wikilawyering.
 * The second sentence indeed seems to be a misattribution. It looks like someone has supplied the wrong citation.  But a mistake of this nature is not a reason for deleting a page.  This sort of thing can be fixed.  You should be making these comments on the article's talk page, not here. Jowa fan (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can go through every single citation, and I predict the same arguments would be put forth.
 * If every mathematician knows these are significant achievements, why have I not seen WP:RSs? Maybe it is just not a notable topic to have inclusion on Wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps you are making a WP:POINT. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So every other AfD has to go through a test of weather it is not making a WP:POINT, before it can be listed a Afd?Curb Chain (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Cardano is a breakthrough/topic creator, regardless of whether the exact word "important" appears anywhere in connection with his work. Any number of sources can be found for this. Not every source needs to show notability of the list, only that the work satisfies the criteria for inclusion that are clearly set out. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Also, the only reason the "Calculi differentialis" reference was screwed up was that someone made an html error in coding it (they put a bad ref id into the tag). I have fixed this. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "In addition to Cardan's major contributions to algebra he also made important contributions to probability, hydrodynamics, mechanics and geology." is the only sentence in that source that mentions the word "important". It's clear that Wikipedia editors are using sources to interpret what is important/significant/breakthrough/influential/landmark and what is not.Curb Chain (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you even read my comment? Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is time to stop mixing issues together. The question is whether this list satisfies the Notability criteria for stand-alone lists. It can satisfy them by having some references that discuss the list as a whole. Not all entries in the list have to be in those references.


 * The requirement that a list have clear criteria for inclusion is in the the Manual of Style for Stand-alone lists, and therefore not grounds for deletion of the list. The requirement that a particular statement be cited is part of the verifiability requirement; a failure to meet this requirement is only grounds for challenging and removing that particular entry. We should only be discussing notability on this page. Other issues should be discussed in the talk page for the list.


 * This list has the required references. Nothing else needs to be discussed. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The article's intro section now includes this:
 * Among published compilations of important publications in mathematics are Landmark writings in Western mathematics 1640–1940 by Ivor Grattan-Guinness[1] and A Source Book in Mathematics by David Eugene Smith[2].
 * Michael Hardy (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can make a List of landmark publications in mathematics for Ivor Grattan-Guinness's Landmark writings in Western mathematics 1640–1940, but that may be a copyright violation and what does David Eugene Smith's A Source Book in Mathematics discuss exactly? Do you have these texts online so that I can assess these sources?Curb Chain (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What is your personal agenda? Why are you working so hard to get all these lists removed? It has been established that by all the criteria you are trying to apply in order to get this list (in particular) removed, such criteria all fail. This list will stay, and you know it. You are making yourself look even more stupid with every post you make. --Matt Westwood 16:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Grattan-Guiness' book on Google Books
 * Smith's book on Google Books
 * Look at the two tables of contents. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Landmark writings in Western mathematics 1640–1940 Page x, 3.1: "The chosen period begin around 1640, when mathemtaics (and science in general) was beginning to show the first signs of pofessional employment and diffusion of information as we know it..."
 * A Source Book in Mathematics backcover: "The work presents, in English translation, the great discoveries in mathematics from the Renaissance to the end of the 19th century"
 * Landmark writings in Western mathematics 1640–1940 only describes writings from a specific period disregarding Chinese, Indian, and other publications earlier, as explained by the quote. Then we have A Source Book in Mathematics, another compilation of great works from another time period. I'm sure the only way we could determine which publications should be included are via Wikipedian editorial judgement.Curb Chain (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Curb Chain, please answer this question in light of this very clear and consensus based guideline in WP:NOTESAL A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Have Books on Mathematics been discussed as a group by reliable sources?  If your answer is Yes, then why is this list not notable and why was it nominated for deletion?  If your answer is No, then what about the two sources above make them unreliable (since they clearly discuss books on Mathematics as a group).  Don't confuse notability of the list with inclusion of individual entries. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The plan will be to search through the literature and develop the list via a process of synthesis. Another useful source work is, for example, "God Created the Integers" by Stephen Hawking. Another one is "Men of Mathematics" by Eric Temple Bell. There are plenty of histories of mathematics, e.g. Morris Kline, Carl Boyer (and this is just the books on my bookshelf), all of which may be used as a source work for determining which books go on the list. --Matt Westwood 22:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Primarily by synthesis? Are there not sources that compile important works for sociology and biology?  Those debates seem to be clear that this is against policy.Curb Chain (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? You'd bring up the example of sociology here?  That debate was 7-2 in favor of keeping.  I won't wheel-war to revert that decision, but there's no real doubt that the deletion was counter to policy. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We used to count votes, but the project has expanded greatly enough that deletion is based on the merits of the arguments.Curb Chain (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Or the opinion of the closing admin, as the case may be. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Curb, you should answer my question and when you have a free moment read: WP:OTHERSTUFF. I want to know if you think this list is notable or not, and if not why! --Mike Cline (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you compare other articles with lists such as these? The inclusion criteria cannot be agreed on.  Even in 2005 an editor had concern that these the inclusion into these articles was privy to the whim of editors.  Did you even know that the way they determining weather new entries would be included was through talk page-local debates (Talk:List of publications in chemistry/Archive 1;Talk:List of publications in chemistry/Archive 2)?Curb Chain (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Curb, simple question. Per WP:NOTESAL, is the topic of this list notable or not.  Inclusion criteria is secondary to that question.  Can you answer the question? --Mike Cline (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This being a math list, I would like to propose the following syllogism: If X is notable and X is a subset of Y, then Y is notable. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to the "keepers"
I suggest we stop wasting our time on this. There's a pretty clear consensus that WP:LISTN does not apply and that it's quite acceptable within guidelines to source each entry independently, i.e. that the idea of "inherent OR" is not applicable either. Let's agree to disagree, leave things as is, and an administrator will come by and close this AfD. If this administrator goes against all this consensus, we can worry about dealing with that then. RobHar (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:LISTN does apply and is the only relevant consideration for deletion. Since this list satisfies the criteria in WP:LISTN, it should be kept. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That would sound sensible, except that some of the lists have already been deleted against consensus. It seems that more vigilance is needed. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree and I think that's why with this AfD a lot more effort has been put in. I'm suggesting that maybe we've put in enough more effort. Who knows? I, for one, will be attending to the myriad productive things I have to do outside of wikipedia. RobHar (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If there's really something in the various rules and guidelines that makes it look as if something like this should be deleted, when its deletion plainly offends common decency, then we need to do some lobbying on those pages that get cited to justify this. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Its actually easier to Find a Source that has a List that can be used as a Cite, which then would imply this Topic is WP:Notable. The Topic that we are talking about is a "List of important " so therefore the Cited source should have a "List of important " within it. What your suggesting is lobbying consensus accepted Guideline and Policy pages into accepting WP:Common knowledge. I believe that, as interested persons in the field, you folkx are the best at finding a source like that. Focusing on the arguing is a waste of time, find a source, Please. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to Bibliography of Mathematics. There are countless sources here Bibliographies of Mathematics that discuss books related to math as a group (duh a bibliography).  Bibliographies are permitted by WP:List.  Indeed if individual entries in this list cannot be sourced to a reliable bibliography or other source, they should be removed, but killing the whole list is absurd.  IMHO, WP:list and its related guidelines are only unclear to those editors who have a avowed hatred of lists in general.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have created a discussion on this idea at the WikiProject Science pearls site. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to List of notable publications in mathematics. Determining importance without is problematic. Notability we do every day here. --Kvng (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You will still have to define notable. And seeing past deletion discussions, this will not happen.Curb Chain (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability has been used for more than a decade as a criterion for inclusion within Wikipedia. Any difficulties in defining it have not resulted in the deletion of all Wikipedia articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And how will we do that? Use the same system of local debates on their talk pages?  Or are you saying that this is going to be redundant to categories?Curb Chain (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The way most encyclopedia-building here happens: WP:PILLARS. Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * IrrelevantCurb Chain (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Curb Chain - if you are trying to argue that Wikipedia doesn't need lists because it has categories, then you might like a "heads up" before you open that particular can of worms. The "categories make lists redundant" point of view had been extensively debated in the past in Wikipedia. The consensus that emerged from these debates was that lists and categories are complementary, parallel and equally useful navigational aids. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Lists are not merely navigational aids; they're for browsing. And I consider them vastly superior to categories (see this page). Michael Hardy (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a simplistic view of looking at it. Categories get deleted all the time.  Lists provide functions Categories can not, but if they are redundant, debates convene to see which gets deleted because they are not useful.Curb Chain (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's just blatantly false, as I've already pointed out to you before. Also, the claim that the pillars are "irrelevant" in deciding how editors are going to decide what merits inclusion is laughable.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying WP:Categories for deletion does not exist?Curb Chain (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying you're wrong that redundancy of lists and categories implies that one or the other is deleted. This is even spelled out in our list guidelines (which I linked to already).  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If there was any doubt before that this discussion was a waste of time, it has now been erased. WP:PILLARS are the core policies of Wikipedia and govern everything we do here. They are relevant by definition.  —Mark Dominus (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Back on topic: I oppose Kvng's naming suggestion because the Wikipedia notion of "notable" differs from the concept of notability generally and I foresee confusion over this point if that rename was made. I'm not opposed to a rename along these lines, just to this particular choice of phrasing. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with CRGreathouse. "Notability" creates an unnecessary ambiguity.  In the proposed list, as I see it we should still demand that entries are to be "notable" in the sense of being indicated as notable/important/landmark or other such characterization, not "notable" in the Wikipedia sense.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I wrote "Notability has been used for more than a decade as a criterion for inclusion within Wikipedia. Any difficulties in defining it have not resulted in the deletion of all Wikipedia articles." and "Curb Chain" answered: "And how will we do that?" And I could ask: do what, specifically? I hadn't mentioned doing anything in particular. And then took the discussion off-topic, it seems. Curb Chain is just trolling. I think this particular AfD is just trolling. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm so glad you said that and not me - I would have done, but I was worried about getting into hotter water than I am already in. IMO CC's been trolling since its records begin in April 2011. More fool us by feeding it. --Matt Westwood 20:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It does seem like trolling. Anyone with a constructive purpose would have tried one of the many Alternatives to deletion first. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If I had done that, I would have removed every unreferenced entry. That had been done on the list of important publications on biology.  The fact that the article has not changed and by the flood of WP:ILIKEIT keepers, had I done so I predict the changes would be reverted and my time wasted.Curb Chain (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't you think tagging is a better solution? Removing entries without being interested or able to assess whether they might belong in the article would, I think, be counterproductive.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you had just started deleting indiscriminately, not only would they have been immediately reverted, but it might also have been the case that you would have been sanctioned, perhaps by having your account blocked. But anyway, I rather think it's the solid references that we are able to turn up without looking very far which is the real cause of you having wasted all your time here. Just because you personally have not read the references being cited is not an argument that those references are inadequate, unless your outlook is psychotically solipsistic.
 * Your point about WP:ILIKEIT is well taken, although it needs to be borne in mind that if we didn't like this article we wouldn't be fighting so hard to keep it. Besides, just because an article is liked does not mean it is ineligible for inclusion (and that can be demonstrated mathematically - if you care to study the subject, you may get to the stage where you understand what I mean).
 * Besides, some of your own arguments against the keeping of these lists are verging on the I just don't like it argument themselves. --Matt Westwood 22:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I use solid policies such as WP:OR and WP:SYN. I didn't include that in my nomination, as I wanted this to be revealed in the discussion. This is a simple case of people who decide what can be included into an article and what can't. A WP:Walled garden or WP:COATRACK. This has gone on for years: articles which editors are interested in, but little know known and the vehement supporters don't want them deleted for personal interest and hobby reasons.Curb Chain (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So the only people who are arguing keep are those who wrote them? Is that what you are really saying? Lady  of  Shalott  03:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an argument that two of the deletionists here have already tried to advance: that those knowledgable in a subject area are "biased", and so their opinions at a deletion debate should be given less weight.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides, I am a counterexample to that hypothesis: I haven't written a word of this article under discussion. However, it's a dangerous precedent to cite that the only people arguing to keep are for "personal interest and hobby reasons". Does this mean I ought instead to be contributing to debates on whether articles on football players or members of boy-bands, for example, should be deleted? I hope not, because I just could not care less about the fate of such articles. What I am apt to comment on are debates about articles that I am interested in. Am I to be disallowed from this, because of my "personal interest"? Ultimately this would mean that only people who have been set up specifically as independent authorities should allowed to comment, and that anyone, anyone who has any personal interest in anything should not be allowed even to contribute to Wikipedia because of their own personal bias and inabiity to be objective. Because effectively that's where this particular argument will end up. I believe this is a direction that many contributors may not feel comfortable with, and I expect there would be some reaction against it. --Matt Westwood 10:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me add that the link to WP:COATRACK doesn't make any sense without explanation. A "coatrack" article by definition gives a biased or untruthful view of its nominal subject.  So far Curb Chain has shown no interest in looking (or perhaps ability to look) at sources to an extent that would allow him/her to ascertain bias or lack of accuracy in the article.  Indeed, anyone willing and able to do so is automatically accused of being a source of bias themselves.  It's a perfect Catch-22: if someone has the required level of literacy to read sources about mathematics, that must mean they are living in a walled-garden.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Can't have none of them intelleckshulls 'round here!
 * I am also a counter-example to the claim - I've not contributed a word to this list either. Even if I had, the argument is specious for the reasons outlined by Matt and Sławomir. I'll also point out that it's not necessary to be a mathematician to contribute intelligently to this conversation. While I'm not of much use to most math articles, I do understand both references and Wikipedia policy well enough to know that this is a notable topic covered by reliable sources. I suggest to the nominator that in cases like this, a simple Google search is not sufficient. A trip to the library and conversation with the friendly staff there might be a more useful approach before attempting any further AfDs of this sort.  Lady  of  Shalott  12:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Back to the basic question: keep on the very simple basis that each of the books and papers here either has a specific Wikipedia article or could easily be qualified for one. That's the basic standard of inclusion. A list of notable  items is a fully justified article. That really seems to me like a definitive argument. The only question is whether we should have a higher level of selection yet, such as Famous books in mathematics. As there are no shortage of sources or which ones are famous, I think that;s pretty clear also.   DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep For the same reasons that the "keepers" have outlined.  See also discussion here Articles_for_deletion/Clinical_trials_with_surprising_outcomes.  Full disclosure, I am the author of this article, and the reasons to keep this mathematics list are also relevant to the clinical trials article.  Andrew73 (talk) 16:12, 6 October 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.