Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People known as the 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   No Consensus to Delete defaulting to keep. Very wide disagreement on the value of this list. There is strong support for a move to another title if it was kept such as the List of persons considered a founder in a field suggested here and would hope that some such change can be agreed as an editorial decision. Davewild (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

People known as the father or mother of something

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

At first I thought from the article title it was a bad joke, but I suppose I can see it being substantially narrowed down (list of founders of fields, schools of thought, whatever). As it currently stands it seems to violate the indiscriminate collection of information concept in opening itself to just about anything. Even the current list has Sir Isaac Newton alongside the creator of Dungeons & Dragons (no offense) and the things they fathered/mothered range from "African Neo-Renaissance" (it doesn't have an article, whatever it is) to "Pokemon", from "gynaecology" to "international folk dance in the United States(?)". Jibbajabba (talk)


 * Delete - I just can't see this being useful; it's just too wide a concept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per the deletion review summary that resulted in restoration after the last misguided deletion. Despite the broadness, this is a viable concept, especially as it continues to improve in terms of categorization.  I can eventually be split into more focused topical lists.  In the meantime, there's no reason to delete it.--ragesoss (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The main issue is that it's simply too generic a title to have any way of defining its scope. As I mentioned - it's possible the article could be salvaged and trimmed, but not at such a vague location. Jibbajabba (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I just can't see it as being useful, and it's far too vague to be a decent article. Skinny87 (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:LIST and is well organized and sourced. I see no policy based problems at all. Nomination seems to be about content, and not the list itself. AfD is not the place for content discussions. Jim Miller (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this well-organized and well-sourced page. A better name might help it, but the content is definitely worth keeping regardless. Frank  |  talk  13:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete absurdity...Modernist (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but Move to a more coherent title. Maybe a re-write is also in order? Change to Delete after reading some comments and thinking longer. Even moving probably wouldn't save this article, definitely not a rewrite. The nature of the list is flawed. Sources do not save article from listing multiple people as the "parent" of, to quote the article name, "something". Erik the Red 2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 15:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/Move; agree with Eric the Red 2 above. Maybe a general article about the expression "Father/Mother of ", describing how the expression is used and including a list of the notable/verifiable stuff from this article? e v i l d e a t h m a t h  17:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Clearly, a lot of work went into this effort, and the sourcing is astonishing. But at the same time, some of these entries appear to be highly subjective (was Imhotep really the father of architecture?). And I hope a more appropriate title can be arranged. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, this article is every bit as worthless as it was prior to the first deletion thereof, and if anything has become more bloated and unwieldy since it was dragged back out of the grave. For heavens' sake, look at the title - Father or mother of something - something??  Seriously?  Let's not forget WP:NOTDIR - this list lumps people like Frank W. Cyr and Mikhail Bakunin together, who have nothing in common outside of the fact that someone, somewhere, decided to anoint them with the title of "Father of".  We're talking about something that is practically the dictionary definition of a directory of loosely related entries.  This isn't like a list of Nobel laureates; there is no credible, respected organization that goes about determining the figurative parentage of different items.  The sources are pulled in from a dizzying array of locations.  Again, I will say, that just because someone (read: anyone), somewhere (read: anywhere) got the bright idea to say "Hey, so-and-so is the Father of Whatever", does not mean it's worth its weight in beans.  This problem is illustrated by the fact that there are 5 - five - different men listed as "Father of Radio", each one supported by no less than one citation.   There are four fathers of electricity, four fathers of chemistry, four for algebra, another five for computers ... need I go on?  If the fact that we can reliably source several people as being "Father/Mother of Whatever" isn't indicative of the fact that this title is worthless, then I do not know what is.  This list is a magnet for trivia and that is all it will ever be. Shereth 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Anyone can apply this label in passing. There's no clear basis for deciding when the label becomes "authoritative." WillOakland (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reason given by the nominator in the previous AfD: "This gigantic list is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information, which Wikipedia is not." Not to mention that it's a magnet for all sorts of nationalistic posturing and bad scholarship over who invented what field. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, on second thought, we might also consider a redirect to great man theory, which this list seems to take as a given. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and Rename. The article certainly needs a lot more work in sorting out the lists and branching them off into relevant main articles, but it would be a great loss if we were to delete the immense effort that has gone into providing sources for its content. The article is already potentially useful for editors writing an article on a given field; with some more work it can also be made informative to the reader. I have had difficulty with the title before (even "List of fathers or mothers of a given field" would be better), but surely that is something best worked out by discussion, moving or splitting into subarticles, rather than permament deletion. --Grimhelm (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Granted, it's a shame to see a lot of hard work lost - but a lot of hard work does not guarantee a decent article. Saying that it is useful also does not excuse the fact that this is still a directory of loosely related items, and is fundamentally flawed as an article. Shereth 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would point out that in just the past hour I have done a lot of work sorting it into relevant section lists. I think you would agree it is now more coherent.  Some of the sections are already split off: eg. Fathers of the Church and Father of the Nation. The sections on Fathers of scientific fields (now split off) and Fathers of Literature (new) are also notable in themselves. I would strongly advise that splitting off the relevant sections and removing some of the more miscellaneous ones is a far better solution than deletion.  --Grimhelm (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh oh, it's reproducing. Does this mean that we need to start four more AfDs? Splitting an article into lots of little pieces isn't usually a good way of saving it from deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete This is about as pointless as a 'List Of Fictional Penguins In Australian Comedy In The Nineteenth Century'. If a person is considered the father/mother of "something" then I suggest to mention that in the article about that person (or that "something"). Channel &reg;   22:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They certainly should be mentioned in their respective articles, but it is also important to recognise that there are co-founders, and that some fields are related (as a well categorised list would show). Moreover, having a list helps co-ordinate the effort you suggest (as well as already providing us the sources necessary). --Grimhelm (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's chicken-or-egg logic. I don't think we need the list to be able to add that Einstein was the father of the Relativity Theory to the Einstein article (or that Saddam Hussein was the father of the Mother Of All Cliches). Besides, who is ever going to FIND a list that's called "People known as the father or mother of something"? Can you see somebody type that into the 'search' field? Seriously, I can't see any proper use for this list. It's just a collection of info and trivia that's already available elsewhere. Wikipedia is drowning in lists like these and I completely fail to see their point. I understand you're defending your work but I really can't see why this list should stay. Channel &reg;   01:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there are nearly 50 article pages that link to this one, and there are 13 redirect pages:
 * Fathers (title)
 * List of people known as father or mother of something
 * List of people known as founder, father, or mother of something
 * Founder of
 * Father of
 * Mother of
 * People known as the founder, father, or mother of something
 * People known as father or mother of something
 * List of people known as the father or mother of something
 * List of people known as "father" or "mother" of something
 * List of people known as the "father" or "mother" of something
 * List of people known as the Father or Mother of something
 * List of people considered the father of something


 * I would say that at least 4, 5, and 6 are decent candidates for searches. Frank  |  talk  02:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Defending one's work is fine, but note that I didn't actually put any real work into this before this AfD. I'm just showing that it can be salvaged. Certainly there are miscellaneous "founders" (founder of the baby carrot?), but once the relevant fields are categorised the non-notable miscellaneous ones can be removed. Fathers of the Church, Fathers of the Nation and Fathers of scientific fields are notable topics; some of the others, less so. I have also noted the problem of finding this article before, but as Frank points out, users can still find this through links, and a rename would solve the problem you mention.  --Grimhelm (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: And finally, being the father of something is a pretty vague and debatable achievement. For example, the list now says that Jan van Eyck is the father of oil painting, while both articles specifically mention this as a misconception. Something the mentioned source in the list obviously disagrees with. Virtually every achievement is too complicated to have a single person 'fathering' it. The title 'father of...' will almost always be a personal opinion or a gross oversimplification of achievements. I don't find that encyclopedic. In short, my delete stands. Channel &reg;   09:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Check my refutation down below ¨¨ victor   falk  10:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My immediate reaction, before checking the article, was "sigh... another stupid, useless list of random articles on sundry people". I was surprised to see a genuinely good list.

Based upon the refutations above, I urge to rename and keep this article ¨¨ victor   falk  08:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * People urging delete have two arguments:
 * a) The title; one the silliest I've seen to be sure; however not a valid reason for deleting. I therefore propose Rename to List of persons considered a founder in a field.
 * b) Too wide a concept. Not with "founder" and "field" instead of "mother" and "something", ie while one could argue ad infinutum wether Bohr, Schrödinger, or Heisenber are fathers of quantum mechanics, it's clear there not founders, however more important their contributions to develop it were than Max Planck's.
 * c)Several founders. Whithout digressing on whether a sexual system with several males contributing genetic material could be evolutionary stable, several genitors is in no way impossible, indeed normal:


 * Comment: After over 200 edits in the past two days, all the alphabetical lists have been sorted and categorised. I feel the changes that have taken place since the nomination have largely addressed the nominator's concerns, and the article can now be split off where appropriate. Some more copyediting and trimming of the Miscellaneous section will improve this article further. --Grimhelm (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep and Rename. I agree that there are some entries in the page that are not so appropriate (like the D&D example raised), particularly because the scope is very large. I'd like to see this page renamed something along the lines of "founders of academic fields", and remove the non-notable materials. --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. If we're going to delete this article, then we might as well delete every other list article on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with having a list article in Wikipedia as per Lists. Jagged 85 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Move and barring that delete. Came across the page while browsing an unrelated topic and I have to admit, despite the points mentioned above about the work that obviously went into this, it's pretty silly. Fathered or mothered... something? Like what? It's definitely too vague. Thompsontough (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not "fathered", but rather "known as the father of". Subtle but real distinction. Frank  |  talk  02:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We would have moved it already, except that it probably would have interfered with the review process. --Grimhelm (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable concept, well referenced, continuously improving article.  A rename would perhaps be advisable, however, as the current title just sounds silly.  I can't imagine to what, though.  Ford MF (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The ability and willingness of Wiki users to aggregate sources in this way is very close to THE fundamental reasons for having electronic wikis at all. The objections from uselessness are wrong by demonstration--this evening I found this specific entry quite valuable indeed as I prepared a Father's Day talk, and far, far faster than any review of individual topic articles one by one could ever have been.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by P40tomahawk (talk • contribs) 04:05, 15 June 2008 (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.