Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific Equipment Optician


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Equipment Optician

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

Listcruft, is as usefull/relevant as "1984 Volvo mechanic" Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The inventors and relevant history are treated at History of optics, and for the others the category suffices. By the stated inclusion criteria, I qualify for the list - this is neat, but not notable. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but change stated inclusion criteria either to list designers or at least only people whose notability is partially dependent on their contributions to the field of optical equipment design or manufacture (at least most of the list already fits). - Eldereft (cont.) 17:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral Meh, once it is retitled and retargeted ... - Eldereft (cont.) 17:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep A list of notable subjects seems to be useful for the encyclopedia. This is a specialized field. I will consider what others have to say, but seems notable to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Highly appropriate list. All of the important in either science of technology .wE could use most customary terminology and call them a list of notable microscope and telescope makers, but the existing title, though unfamiliar, will do. Considerable information can and should be quickly added to show why its better than a category (years of activity is the principal orienting element toadd, though nationality would be a good idea as well.). They are every one of them extremely important in the development of science, and there are books & articlescovering them as a group. I could suggest a few other groups, such as survying instrument makers. DGG (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a poor way of providing information about the persons who contributed to the development of the telescope and the microscope -- obscurely titled, uninformative, and difficult to locate. If someone wants to make this more than what a category would accomplish, then it might serve a purpose.  A list of notable subjects has the potential to be useful for an encylcopedia; this list does not live up to that potential.  Mandsford (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Google searching shows this to be a neologism. I get no hits that aren't catch-all search pages or mirrors of Wikipedia. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone does attempt a fix, the silly title would be the first change. Describing Anton Von Leeuwenhoek as a "scientific equipment optician" makes him sound like "Tony from our quality control department" ("and G.G. here is our SEO for long-range visuals").   However, moving the article to something different won't make this less indiscriminate. Mandsford (talk) 14:45, 7 December 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.