Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security


 * 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. Discussion about renaming can take place on the talk page. T. Canens (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

List of important publications in networks and security

 * – ( 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) 13:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of publications. This is original research lacking objective inclusion criteria; remove the "importance" criteria, and we would be left with an article from which no topical publication could possibly be excluded, leading to a lengthy and WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Depending on how one construes things, WP:NOTLINK may also apply. At best, it could be split up and merged to Further Reading sections of more specific articles. --Cyber cobra (talk) 22:40, 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 23:59, 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)
 * Sister AfDs For ease of cross-referencing (this really ought to have been a single grouped nomination): WP:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing, WP:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in theoretical computer science --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:22, 2 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)
 * PS: The statement "search revealed no compilation of important works in this field" is an embarrassment and affront to every editor doing content work. Most of the sources given in the list are indeed highly notable in their field, and a simple search via Google could have easily verified this. Did you expect a book with the title "This is a list of important works in this field"? This is an assume-bad-faith nomination. Nageh (talk) 16:39, 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. The nominator's (implicit) rationale for deletion – no sources exist that define which publications are "important" and which are not – is unreasonable. What it boils down to is: "There is no reliable source proclaiming, The following are the important publications in [insert name of scientific field]: 1. ... 2. ... 3. ...; therefore it is original research and must be deleted." (And if such a source existed, the article would instead be speedily deleted as a copyvio – you can't win.) This is not a reasonable deletion rationale because it applies to basically any "List of ..." article. For example, for List of magazines in Pakistan, where is the reliable source that states: The following are the notable magazines in Pakistan: ...? A rationale that applies to essentially all stand-alone list articles is obviously too broad; if you wish to see this list deleted, a rationale must be presented that is somewhat specific to this list, and not so general that it applies generically to all list articles. --Lambiam 14:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not make such a claim.
 * Here it is simply:
 * The list lists important publications. I found no source which lists important publications in networks and security
 * If this was just a list of publications in networks and security, then a category would have served its purpose.Curb Chain (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you won't find sources which replicate the structure of our articles either. What we do is called "surveying" of references. Concerning lists vs. categories, you should have a look at Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Nageh (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe we are misunderstanding each other. What I mean is a category lists articles that we have in Wikipedia; the are on wikipedia because they are notable.  Categories suffice adequately.
 * Articlespace is like categories, but they allow references to be listed - That is their use. And sometimes they are mutually exclusive because it may not be defining for an article to be labeled into a category.Curb Chain (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "I found no source which lists important publications in networks and security". Here you (Curb Chain) explicitly confirm what I understood to be your implicit (and in my opinion unreasonable) deletion rationale. --Lambiam 06:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree that deriving a list from a reliable source would necessarily be a copyvio. --Cyber cobra (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you not noticed that (in your example) List of magazines in Pakistan is open to ALL magazines in Pakistan? Whereas the List we are talking about is not open to all publications in networks and security. For some reason this list is an exclusive club, based upon ... what? The editor of the moments idea of what constitutes "important" ? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have noticed that List of magazines in Pakistan uses as its inclusion criterion that the magazines are notable, which is why that word appears in my earlier comment. The essence of nominator's deletion rationale is: "There is no RS stating: 'The following are the the s satisfying '", specialized to the list article under discussion. I have merely specialized that rationale to another list article, replacing "publication in networks and security" by "magazine in Pakistan", and "important" by "notable".  --Lambiam 20:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You give an excellent argument for why all the OR that is not BlueLinked in this List should be removed... Its not WP:Notable, therefore its cant be Important. My argument only happens to go a single step further, if the Topic isnt spoken about, the list shouldnt exist, because it is OR without any sources saying "person X believes these are important" Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm getting very tired of making the same "keep" argument at each of these "List of important publications..." AfDs.  This throwing articles against the wall to see what sticks seems inappropriate.  Closing admin: please see my arguments elsewhere.  I see no need to reiterate them.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, subject to providing sources, per extensive comments by Geometry guy. Geometry guy 22:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your small PPS in that post indicates exactly how futile such a list will be. Once we have a list of significant publications in networks and security, we will have list of major publications in networks and security and list of landmark publications in networks and security 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) 23:06, 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. Geometry guy 23:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Reasons for inclusion are clearly presented at the top of the list article. If you have a doubt about any item listed, discuss it on the talk page.  The items on the list have links to the authors and even their important publications.   D r e a m Focus  23:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Before stating one or two reasons that comply with our rules and regulations, let me state the main reason for me: (I am aware of WP:USEFUL.) It is an incredibly useful list. To me, it is so useful that it is the only article I watchlisted primarily in order to be informed of new developments, not in order to edit it. Apart from that, it is possible to reference those claims one by one because every once in a while an academic paper states that certain works are "important" or "groundbreaking". I am not sure such references would improve the readability of this list, but if they are required to fulfill WP:NOR they can certainly be found. So if there is a problem at all, this can be solved by editing, rather than deleting. Geometry guy also makes excellent remarks here. --Pgallert (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I feel the above 2 have missed the point completely. I hardly care about individual Citations (of which this List has none), I am looking for a even a single Cite that "discusses the group or set" in accord with WP:LISTN. If reliable secondary sources don't feel the confidence to compile and publish a "list of important ", should WP forge ahead by itself and justify by saying "its WP:OBVIOUSLY Important & WP:Common knowledge". No, we dont do that because it is Original research. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 20:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, you don't understand the difference between surveying and original research. It is not original research to collect material from multiple sources within the same article, we are doing this all the time. The question is solely whether this form of list is notable as-is or not – and for this we typically rely on secondary sources. However, the primary argument has been that these kinds of lists are tremendously useful for an encyclopedia whose stated goal is to collect and further the sum of human knowledge. 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) 20:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is so much wrong with what you just said, I'm just going point by point. a/ The Primary topic (List of important...) must be cited to be WP:Notable. It has to come from somewhere. b/ WP:ITSUSEFUL c/ we DO follow community consensus on Policies & Guidelines, each Article/List cannot write their own rules. d/ What "Ignore all rules" means Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 01:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Geometry guy. Useful, encyclopedic and can be adequately sourced. —Ruud 08:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science pearls-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science pearls-related deletion discussions.


 * Weak keep, for the same reasons stated by Geometry guy. The editors have not yet provided a source for the list as a group, but they could probably do so with a suitable book on the history of networks and security. To quote Jerry Maguire, "Help me to help you!" RockMagnetist (talk) 22:09, 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)
 * Keep per Geometry Guy. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have created a discussion about renaming the lists to bibliographies at the WikiProject Science pearls site. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Almost every publication listed could be the subject of an individual article--some of them are already. (It only requyires 2 reliable sources giving substantial discussions of them). A list of notable  things of a particular type is always justifiable. We should keep this, and simply write the articles. If we found we were unable to do it in a particular case, that one should be removed, as for other lists--but I doubt that would happen.    DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to List of notable publications in networks and security. Determining importance without is problematic. Notability we do every day here. --Kvng (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we have tried to find notable works, but we have to synthesize them to put them on here, which is not what we do.Curb Chain (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SYN does not seem mean what you think it does. It doesn't mean that we cannot combine facts sourced to the literature in an article.  We do that all the time.  The primary task of editors is to do this.  (Policies exist to help us do this in the most effective way to further the goal of building an encyclopedia, which is, I hope, what we are all here to do.)  WP:SYN only applies to the case of taking one source that says A and another that says B, and combining them to say therefore C.  I see no synthesis issue at all in having a list that includes landmark or breakthrough publications, provided a reliable source can be found (individually) that supports inclusion of that item in the list.  This is emphatically not synthesis.  It is encyclopedia-building.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In an article, but not in a list! And you need more than 1 compilations to do this.  With such a lengthy discussion, I have found no one who has improved the article or provided such compilations to reference the article.  All I see are i like it arguements.Curb Chain (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting your novel interpretation of WP:SYN as applied to lists?  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It really applies to everything, and it applies to lists.Curb Chain (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I make a synthesis out of your two statements above: "It really applies to everything, and it applies to lists, and in an article, but not in a list!" Great wikilawyering! Sigh. Do some content work instead of harassing serious editors. Nageh (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If it has an Article on WP, then it is automatically assumed to be notable, so adding Notable into the Topic is moot. Doing this would be the same as naming it List of publications in networks and security. The last AfD related to this name structure had a problem with it, although I (personally) would have voted keep for it. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 01:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That irrelevant comment has no place here.Curb Chain (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pointing out the incoherence of your arguments seems quite relevant to me. Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename as per Kvng. There is at least 40 years of research into what makes a publication important, read about it at Bibliometrics. The current article (and related articles) appear obvious to that 30 40 years of research. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is anecdotal information?Curb Chain (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is not WP:OR, for the reasons already amply discussed at Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics.  However, I note that this article does need some references to establish the notability of the items on the list.  Improve, don't delete. Jowa fan (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will work on adding references once this pointless AfD is over. I'm not doing it now because there are some things I would like to discuss first, like whether cryptography and networking should be jointly presented on the same page (I think, not), how to structure the page, whether to include notable books on cryptographic history like David Kahn's, etc. But with serious editors, please. Nageh (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. A point that nobody has mentioned is that the criteria for lists in WP:LISTN is relatively new. It was introduced only early this year and that is long after this list and all the other lists of publications were started. I for one was unaware of this change to the Notability guideline. Note too that it is guideline, not policy. I suspect that all the editors who have been editing these lists were also unaware of the change. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability. I suggest that the discussion there by people who spend time on this guideline is more relaxed about the criteria for list inclusion than some of the editors here using WP:LISTN as an argument for deletion. It is so new that it does not yet apply to a very large number of lists. We should be educating editors about this criteria and perhaps opening up the discussion on WP:LIST to see if some modification of the criteria should be introduced. Editors should then be given time to improve lists rather than deleting them now. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:06, 7 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.