Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people known as father or mother of something


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. The problem with many of the arguments below is that a source that merely describes something as something is not really a source of information; it's a source of wording. For all intents and purposes this list is merely a collection of links to sources, which have in common only that they share a particular, exceedingly common turn of phrase. In short, Haemo's argument that it is "excellently cited" is not convincing to me, and Carcharoth's intelligent comment that the association between the members is too loose and that the list as it stands is essentially original research is quite convincing. Chick Bowen 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

List of people known as father or mother of something

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This gigantic list is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information, which Wikipedia is not. It is simply a list of people loosely connected by the concept that they have been referred to as the "father" or "mother" of something, which isn't encyclopedic within itself. Core desat 05:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm going to have to disagree here. The concept of being the "father/mother of something" is a noteworthy one, and an important attribute of a number of historical figures.  It's also something which cannot be categorized well, making it perfect for a list -- and this one is excellently cited.  --Haemo 05:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with haemo; commonly used descriptor, appropriate for a list. Article is cited. Recurring dreams 05:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to hate myself in the morning, but Weak keep. I hate the title, but it's well sourced. Clarityfiend 06:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The title is bad, I agree -- can anyone suggest a better one? --Haemo 07:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * List of progenitors. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Strong Keep. I wish more articles were as well-sourced and researched as this one. Hardly indiscriminate at all. --Hemlock Martinis 07:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is reliably sourced and the opposite of indiscriminate - these people have been selected by their peers and by the public simply because they are considered either fathers or mothers of notable subjects. -- Charlene 07:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see how this is at all indiscriminate, a word that seems to be ignored a lot of time. Its well referenced and coherent. The only problem is the little thing telling would-be editors not to add unreferenced material to the article, which breaks character. Atropos 07:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whilst it is excellently cited, the 'one hit and you're in' criteria make it impossible to give a neutral point of view. It is far from complete and could run into thousands of entries. Leonardo Da Vinci is not on the list; a quick Google search shows that he's been described as the father of flight, cryptography and modern anatomy. It's the same for most inventors, not to mention artists and politicians.-- Nydas (Talk) 07:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Being incomplete is reason to delete something? Atropos 07:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's incomplete becase it's indiscriminate. 'Father/mother of' is just a figure of speech. We might as well have a list of people known for being the genius behind something.-- Nydas (Talk) 08:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not indiscriminate. Greg Grahame 12:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as highly indiscriminate, non-objective POV. A quick search turns up a competitor to Vint Cerf for the "Father of the Internet" title,, so who gets the billing? Tarc 13:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One flaw does not damn an article to deletion. If it's wrong then remove it. Simple as that. --Hemlock Martinis 04:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I agree that this is not indiscriminate, but it does feel like too loose an association. This sort of information, and the references, belong in the articles about the people involved. This is precisely the sort of collection of information that requires focused editorial judgement and being referenced to a reliable source. In other words, we need several sources that show that other people have bothered to take on the mammoth task of cataloging "father/mother of" references, and ideally, adding critical commentary. If no-one else has done this, then we should not be doing it - ultimately it will end up as original research. Take as an example, the various "longest rivers" lists, or top 100 films. Other people have tried coming up with lists, so Wikipedia has some justification for doing the same, or at least recording what other people have done. The same should be the case here. We should be documenting what attempts have been made by other people to collate lists of father/mother of material, not doing the original collation ourselves. Carcharoth 13:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Though certainly interesting, it is completely open to subjective analysis. Though some of these people are known as the singular "mother and father" of something, it is certainly not the same for others, especially national icons. So I agree with Tarc. Bulldog123 15:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, extensive sourcing notwithstanding. I know I'm going against the grain here, but if lumping the "father of the baby carrot", the "father of Canadian rodeo" and Jules Verne together simply because someone called them the "father of something" isn't an indiscriminate listing and a violation of WP:NOT, I really don't know what is.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a directory of loosely-associated topics. Otto4711 18:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Idea. What if we were to divide the list by topic? Fathers of scientific topics, fathers of artistic styles and mediums, fathers of political philosophies, etc.? --Hemlock Martinis 21:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It would create a bunch of indiscriminate collections of information, not just one. --Core desat 01:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, it's not even indiscriminate as it stands right now. WP:NOT#INFO lists five types of unacceptable lists (FAQs, plot summaries, lyrics, statistics and news reports); this one does not fall entirely or tangentially underneath a single one of those. Second, the list sets out the criteria well: it's someone who's been described as a father/mother of something, and it has to be sourced. While I admit some of the sources are dubious, we don't delete articles for having fixable flaws. --Hemlock Martinis 02:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I should have linked WP:NOT and not WP:NOT, but under DIRECTORY, lists of loosely associated topics are not acceptable. --Core desat 02:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. As for WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, all one has to do is look through "What links to here" to see how many articles reference someone being the father of something. There is a common thread, and that's being called the father of something. I'll yield that it's indiscriminate as to what people can be the father of, but it is discriminate in that they all have to be the father of something. It's the same kind of list as List of premature obituaries and List of HIV-positive people, both featured lists; the people in those two lists have nothing in common EXCEPT what the list links them together with. --Hemlock Martinis 02:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NOT and the above Delete votes. Well-sourced or not, it's an indiscrimate (as stated above, "one hit and you're in", plus very loose association) collection of info. edgarde 01:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See Below Delete. Before I continue, in the interest of openess I have to say that I am usually against lists in general and find that they generally fail the 'indiscriminate' test.  That being said, I feel that this is one of those lists that does fail.  Many have pointed to the fact that it is well researched and compiled.  This is true.  However, a well researched batch of indiscriminate information is still a batch of indiscriminate information.  When it comes to whether or not to delete articles, one of the first questions I ask is, does this have utility (for we are trying to create a reference work here, right?).  I just do not see how this can aid anybody who is using the encyclopedia for either research or to just gain general knowledge.  A list of people who have been called the 'father' or 'mother' of something just doesn't DO anything.  That information has utility only within the context of the articles listed and not a list itself. CaveatLectorTalk 10:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: this has been around for a while, but the title is much too all-encompassing. Virtually any notable person qualifies. -- MisterHand 18:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not unless they have adequate sources, they don't. The article just needs better oversight. --Hemlock Martinis 20:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete as an indiscriminate collection of information, of questionable importance, and POV. See Listcruft. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It ain't indiscriminate, and Listcruft is just an essay. --Hemlock Martinis 20:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we maybe get over the fact that listcruft is an essay? Obviously an arc-load of people agree with it. Bulldog123 01:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, unless Jimbo penned it himself, it's still just an essay. That means it's just an opinion. Not a guideline. Not a suggestion. Not even an indication. Just an opinion, one which STAYS an opinion because enough people disagree with it to prevent it from becoming anything else. --Hemlock Martinis 04:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "I like it" is just an opinion too but that doesn't stop dozens of AfDs from closing "no consensus" because of it. Bulldog123 06:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't about other AfDs. This is about this AfD. And the truth is, other than "I don't like it", there's no reasonable reason to delete this list. --Hemlock Martinis 08:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see how this helps the project out in any way. A category, maybe, but this list really isn't serving any purpose. CaveatLectorTalk 10:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Helps the project? What an unquantifiable criteria that is. Almost as bad as "uncyclopedic". --Hemlock Martinis 18:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 12:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and I am once again baffled as to what most editors think the word "indiscriminate" means. Per WP:LIST, the Wikipedia List Guideline, this is valid.  This is useful for information and for navigation.  And it's just incredibly well-sourced.  Somebody put a lot of work into this article and we need something much better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT to destroy all that hard work.  And, even if you think it falls under WP:NOT, (a statement with which I directly and specifically disagree because the inclusion criteria are stated, it is not a directory, and just because the concept "Parent of" is an abstraction, doesn't mean it's therefore loosely related); why not in recognition of the incredible hard work that went into this list just cut the creators some slack because in addition to having dubious arguments to delete, the list happens to be incredibly interesting. --JayHenry 05:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Interesting" is never a reason to keep an article. As to "indiscriminate", it means in this case that a collection of people are tied together by an unremarkable or trivial connection; being arbitrarily recognized by non-authoritative bodies/sources as being the "father of..." something.  There are so many valid reasons to delete this cruft, 'tis sometimes hard to choose. Tarc 15:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. So I thought of a use for this collection of information, perhaps if you were studying patterns of the actual process of becoming known as the father or mother of something, especially a gender based study, this collection of information might be useful.  I implore the caveat, however, that even though IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete, SOMEBODYPUTALOTOFWORKINTOIT is no a reason to keep either.  I think the list should be restructed and cleaned up of the stuff that is truly indiscriminately added (the father of the baby carrot??).  CaveatLectorTalk 12:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It’s an excellent sub-index of notable people, contributes to accessibility of their entries, and definitely belongs in a comprehensive encyclopedia.  Both the person and the thing need to be notable enough to have their own entries, as is mostly the case.  Non-notable entries should be removed.  Ideas for reorganization should be left to editors involved.  WP:NOT does not apply as that policy section is intended to prevent directories of wikipedia content, which are necessary for accessibility.  --SmokeyJoe 03:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is the father of bad list ideas. Basically, the criteria for being on this list is "Someone, at some point, had a certain opinion about you or your work." We could just as easily have a "List of people called stupid" or a "List of people known as hard workers". But those better be redlinks, because all they reflect is "Someone, at some point, made an entirely subjective determination about you." For the same reason, this one ought to be a redlink too. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As you may have noticed, many of the references are from reliable sources. A brief glance yields the names Encylopedia Britannica, The Telegraph, BBC, New York Times, as well as scholarly papers and university publications. --Hemlock Martinis 22:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Brittanica has called people a lot of things. (I doubt they frequently use "stupid", but I bet you'd find "hard worker" appearing in it more than once.) The fact that some reliable sources use an adjective or metaphor frequently doesn't mean we need a list of everything or everyone referred to in that way. If it's frequently said "X is the father of Y", and we can source that, that bit can go in their article, with a lot more context. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly! That's why we should keep it! Then we can go through and weed out the problems! --Hemlock Martinis 06:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's even more of a reason to delete it. Add the sourced info to the individual's articles as appropriate, sure.  But there's nothing that ties all of these people together other than a synthesized point of view. Tarc 13:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The list could use a better clarification as to what it means to be a father or mother of something, but the entries appear to be grouped by theme and based on a consistent membership criteria rather than being non-selective, random, haphazard, thoughtless, thrown together, and jumbled. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 21:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There ought to be categories for this. The telephone has several "fathers," not just Bell.  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A category would be a worse idea than nothing at all. Categories only serve to organize information, not provide it. A father of something category would be uselessly unhelpful. --Hemlock Martinis 22:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - This article is no more indiscriminate than any of the other lists on Wikipedia. Jagged 85 05:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but the title of the article seems a bit silly. Is there not a more eloquoent way of expressing this?Vice regent 15:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't. --Hemlock Martinis 20:52, 12 July 2007 (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.