Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian scientists

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. WjBscribe 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Australian scientists

List of Australian scientists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Like the recently deleted Australian musicians list this list is too broad in scope to every be complete (WP:LIST); there are no inclusion criteria, a look over the list shows that it includes, physical, biological and social scientists,; as well as people that aren't really scientists - like engineers and architects; this could run into thousands of people. There are good categories for all types of Australia scientists; delete. --Peta 05:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 06:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Peta.--cj | talk 06:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete on the condition that Peta include every one of the people on this list in a category. JRG 08:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The only categories the people included were missing is births/living/deaths.... --Peta 09:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok - thanks. Definite delete now. JRG 09:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 09:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. I am not convinced that this list is unmaintainable. Although there are many Australian scientists, there is not so many notable enough to have articles that the list becomes an unmaintainable one. As for redundancy with the categorization scheme... well I'll agree that the list could be sorted by something else than the alphabet, chronologically by birth might be a better idea, but since each entry has a note of what science the person worked with, and when the person lived, I will call the list annotated, and as such not redundant. I feel that the list passes two criteria on the WP:LIST guideline, it is informative by virtue of the annotations, and it serves a purpose as a navigational aid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete per nomOo7565 18:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons listed above, plus I forsee problems with the definition of "scientist". For example, at least some of the engineers/inventors on this list are not scientists (technology != science), many other problems with who ought to be considered a scientist are possible. Pete.Hurd 21:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - utterly impossible to maintain. There are literally thousands of names added to a theoretical complete list every year, even ignoring definitional concerns. --Haemo 02:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete too broad an inclusion criteria. Try List of Australian organic chemists, List of Australian research botanists... Garrie 23:23, 1 April 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.