Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Normally our "timelines" work as a chronological link to articles dealing with the subjects of the timeline. This though is a list of primary sources, a rather specialized bibliography, and isn't a notable subject on its own nor a navigational tool to articles about the individual entries. Fails WP:N and WP:NOT. Fram (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies and Politics. Fram (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep – As article creator. There are many timelines like it, here multiple disciplines are featured within a single article. It is a very notable subject on its own (and of high global significance), why wouldn't it? Examples of similar articles include Timeline of senescence research, Timeline of paleontology, 2022 in paleontology, Timeline of Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event research, Timeline of psychology, and many more.
 * Also the deletion sorting is inappropriate as it does not include the main WikiProject, which is WikiProject Science. It also fits WP:NOT, especially WP:NOTPAPER. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as an arbitrary personal collection of primary sources, per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Utterly fails to indicate how 'significant events' are defined, or even why we need a 'timeline' covering such an amorphous topic as 'governance and policy studies'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is false. That's currently on the talk page and will get moved in a shorter form to the lead. It's not an amorphous topic and a topic more significant than e.g. paleontology. It's not an "arbitrary personal collection" either. Like the many other timelines like it, it perfectly meets WP:NOTWEBHOST. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk page discussions are not reliable sources, and the talk page discussion you link (which consists mostly of your own walls of text), accordingly cannot be cited as evidence for the notability of the supposed subject, the extent of the supposed subject, or even its existence as more than a string of words typed at a keyboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You know this isn't what I meant, I referred to the quoted.
 * Notability is via altmetrics numbers, WP:RS coverage and citations, and criteria. Again, it perfectly meets the policies, there currently is no problem there, and there are many many timelines just like it. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Inclusion criteria like "The finding has to have at least one news report by a reputable/reliable source."? Doesn't seem to be adhered to at all in this timeline, which seems indeed to be a random, personal choice of what to include. Fram (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That may be how it seems to you after a very quick glance over it, but it's false nevertheless.
 * In terms of the criteria of requiring an (additional) WP:RS, yes in that case the few items with high altmetrics & citation scores (which basically/nearly all items there have) but only one ref could be removed via this criteria (if you consider this to be a large problem). I would recommend tagging them instead and it's not relevant to deletion, as the solution there would be to remove these rather than the entire article. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Read WP:BLUDGEON. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and trim (or provide RS citations). Newspapers and other RS frequently mention or discuss current research. I think it is possible (and compliant with existing policies) to create a timeline of the development of research on the topic. That said, each of the timeline entries should be discussed in RS. --Enos733 (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How is it not WP:INDISCRIMINATE? What's the connection between an entry like "A professor for digital media technology clarifies that "Twitter was not designed or intended to be a digital town square", which she suggests is a misconception, but is a "space for millions of town criers, but not a town square for people to come together and debate"" and "Datasets about U.S. military interventions (1776–2019), organized violence (1989–2019), and conflict events worldwide (since 1468BC) are released." Fram (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Quick note: copyedited it now to make it clearer. No part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not met. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing in your update actually helps, it simply includes some terms not present in the actual, well, not a study or research at all but a kind of blog post by "an assistant professor of digital media technology in the department of journalism and creative media" but which you added to give it an impression of being related to whatever the list topic is. Fram (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We have no indication of what 'the topic' even is. 'Governance and policy studies' isn't a field of research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Governance studies and policy studies are. Simply do read the lead. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You are one vacuous WP:BLUDGEON post from being reported at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the WP:OSE pages above are are on narrower topics (Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event) or are limited to more historically significant events (Timeline of paleontology). This page is just an indiscrimate collection of publications about a fairly broad topic from the impact on military drones to a review of health-related randomized trials. There are whole journals about health policy, about energy policy, etc. and even only including those that received mainstream media coverage this list would balloon into something entirely unmanageable and useless for how broad it is or can be. The lead's "significant events" criterion is not borne out by mundane inclusions of articles about Chinese port expansion and trust-building and I'm not sure how it would be improved. These journal articles would be great in respective topic articles but I don't see how combining them here is helpful or feasibly encyclopedic. Reywas92Talk 17:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Unlike psychology, which is (relatively) narrow in a disciplinary sense, "governance and policy" by comparison is big enough for the proverbial mack truck (and more) since it is informed by *every* discipline. Despite discussion here, the notion presented for inclusion remains WP:INDISCRIMINATE (there's no reason I could not populate this with literally hundreds of items in Japanese, Spanish, German, French, Korean, Russian etc). The article fails WP:NLIST since there is no reliable source discussion of the group. It's original research, since it appears to be self-selected. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all afaik I'm allowed to reply here per WP:DPAFD. I try to keep my replies at a minimum, and they are not "vacuous" replies but address specific points raised once as I find them to be wrong (misconceptions) that I'd like to clarify which is allowed. This is not to convince you but to at least address these specific points for others even if my 6 replies is > 5 and 4 of other commentators here. Per WP:BLUD I'm not and  (it is needed due to misconceptions).
 * The pages above are not narrower topics, psychology or paleontology are not a narrower topics and there are even broader ones such as List of years in science.
 * Removed some content to remove peace & conflict studies (incl items that aren't about particular policies) now to address Reywas' point.
 * It's not an indiscriminate collection – see the in/exclusion criteria.
 * is false for two reasons:
 * there are very items that meet the criteria and received mainstream media coverage (e.g. most studies are about U.S. policy only or didn't get picked up by WP:RS; note that I did check all the health policy journals that have a WP article to make sure even though this page doesn't claim to include all significant events/studies). These 2 criteria already exclude most items.
 * and even if that wasn't the case the page wouldn't balloon unmanageably just like all the other broad timelines as items can be removed by others and discussed on the talk page and requires people to add them. Again, this already works in many other timeline articles.
 * the timeline chronicles major events in human scientific history; we shouldn't put an irresponsible unwarranted blind eye on policy studies in specific while extensively covering paleontology and various other fields.
 * See point #1 above. Also studies by which studies within policy & governance studies are are not included, only studies within those fields about policies.
 * No part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not met – have you read it?
 * is false for the two reasons of #3 above.
 * Policy studies and studies about policies internationally are notable. Note that it's not called more narrowly Timeline of policy studies 2020–present as there are actually very few items to include and these fields are overlap / partly synonymous. RS that discuss these fields together include
 * All content on Wikipedia is selected by the editors in that sense as the article contents are not based on some other encyclopedia or alike, this is not WP:OR and no part of that policy is not met.
 * Sorry for the long reply, collapse it if needed, quite likely it's my last reply here. I didn't make and tried to make my  which can sometimes require addressing specific points, especially if they are in my view misconceptions that need clarifications. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the talk pages of WP:WikiProject History of Science and WP:WikiProject Years. --Prototyperspective (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, this list is utterly bloated with scientific studies that share nothing in common plucked from every field that even vaguely relates to the social sciences. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NLIST. This article is very different from something like Timeline of paleontology or Timeline of psychology, which are predominantly chronologies of historical events, theories, and persons, most of them independently notable. This article, in contrast, is a collection of recent research, the historical significance of which is not yet known. Arguably some of the most recent entries in Timeline of psychology are in a similar position, but those are a questionable portion of a larger article whose overall topic is well-defined and clearly notable. This article is only the questionable part of a much less well-defined subject area. --RL0919 (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT, and WP:NLIST as articulated well by RL0919 and Goldsztajn.4meter4 (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT, and WP:NLIST as articulated well by RL0919 and Goldsztajn.4meter4 (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2022 (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.