Wiki143:Articles for deletion/List of books in computational geometry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. Cbrown1023 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
List of books in computational geometry
Original research, who is to say these books are any better or worse than others in the field. WP is not Amazon.com! Steve (Slf67) talk 22:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC). Following the discussion I'll concur with Merge into respective articles --Steve (Slf67) talk 00:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- keep. A thorough ignorance speaks here. Please show me which "others in the field" you know and feel free to add them to the list. My point is there are probably about two dozen of these books, easily listed here. "Not amazon.com" is not listed among WP:NOT, not to say that wikipedia is not "Encyclopedia Britannica online" either and not IMDB and not porn shop and not pokemon fair and not whatever else stuffed into wikipedia. `'mikka 22:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. For an exercise, why dont you go and delete List of Linux books or something else from category:Lists of books. `'mikka 23:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure that's meant to be a rhetorical question, but why not indeed? Your argument would be a lot more persuasive if you could point to some failed AfDs in the category. Melchoir 22:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- On Special:Allpages, all I find is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books for copy editors, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books about World War II, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books similar to Harry Potter, all of which were deleted for various reasons. Melchoir 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral I'm not a big fan of lists but comprehensive texts on computational geometry are not that abundant so it shouldn't be a problem to have a decent unbiased list. On the other hand, I still feel that most lists in the lists of books category are of dubious encyclopedic value. But that's just me. Pascal.Tesson 23:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- So Cleveland steamer is encyclopaedic, but science books are not. Very funny encyclopedia we have here. `'mikka 03:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- speedy keep We have such lists in every subject This one is a little different, for most of the others have been renamed List of important books, or List of important publications, and objective criteria are given for the listings. I would suggest that this too be renamed and limited, but that question is for the individual article talk page.DGG 07:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I like the idea. It allows Wikipedia to become a whole new kind of reaserch aid. -Toptomcat 12:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Why is this not simply a "Further reading" section in computational geometry? Uncle G 13:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Because it has the potential to bloat the article? -Toptomcat 14:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt it. There are only 19 books listed. Uncle G 16:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hence, potential. The number of known books on computational geometry may grow. -Toptomcat 18:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- But since it hasn't yet, I pose the question again: Why is this not simply a "Further reading" section in computational geometry? Uncle G 16:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hence, potential. The number of known books on computational geometry may grow. -Toptomcat 18:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt it. There are only 19 books listed. Uncle G 16:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Because it has the potential to bloat the article? -Toptomcat 14:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, no vote. But you can have "list of books" on every field, and every subfield, and every subfield of a subfield... Like List of books on Palaentology, List of books on String Theory, List of books on American history in the 19th century, List of books on American Civil War, List of books on Lincoln's role in American Civil War... where is it going to end? -- Ekjon Lok 17:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Why would it need to end? Many of those sound like useful lists. -Toptomcat 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete I like the idea; this particular collection, however, looks like an indiscriminate collection of texts picked up off Amazon.com. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep Even list articles can (and must) be encyclopedic, and this one needs some work, but surely some sources exist. Has anyone checked Mathscinet for reviews? Melchoir 22:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral: with stable versions and expert reviews such lists would be very, very valuable. I am not sure that they work as well under current structure of WP. A good example is List of important publications in geology and Category:Lists of publications in science. Pavel Vozenilek 23:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment A better example in this case is list of important publications in mathematics. Michael Hardy 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Now that you mention it, List of important publications in mathematics looks much more interesting than the one about computational geometry. Does anyone feel like improving the latter to the same standard? EdJohnston 03:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment A better example in this case is list of important publications in mathematics. Michael Hardy 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep:Lists are a distinctive and useful part of Wikipedia. This one is unlikely to cause any problems. Leave it alone.--agr 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This list and all others like it should be included as bibliographies at the end of specific articles. Having a set of articles on various subjects and a separate set of book lists doesn't strike me as being particularly useful for a user of Wikipedia. If I want to know the basics of computational geometry then I'll read the article on it and if I decide to study it further I'll scroll down to the bibliography. Most users would think this way, but would NOT think to go searching Wikipedia for some separate list. As far as "bloating" the articles, I would rather bloat the bottom of some articles than create a bloated and less useful Wikipedia. capitalist 03:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. I'm not a big fan of lists in general, but this makes a decent extended references section for the main computational geometry article. —David Eppstein 03:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into computational geometry. I changed my mind after seeing Ruud's suggestion. —David Eppstein 19:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I have left important remarks on the article's talk page. Unless and until those issues are addressed, I'm reluctant to recommend a fate. --KSmrqT 10:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge back into computational geometry. —Ruud 14:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge back into computational geometry. (Thanks for the idea, Ruud).--CSTAR 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry. Bad idea. "Computational geometry" is now in a pitiful, sketchy state. It may be expanded at least 4-5 times. List of books is a separate, detachable topic. What purpose is to bloat an article with it? It is just one click away and its separation does not break the logic of the article in any way. I also intend to expand the list with brief annotations. `'mikka 22:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- In my opinion that "one click" is more of a problem than the "bloat" added to the article (in small print you can list over 30 books on a single screen). Why break with the convention of listing literature relevant to a subject in the article itself? —Ruud 02:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry. Bad idea. "Computational geometry" is now in a pitiful, sketchy state. It may be expanded at least 4-5 times. List of books is a separate, detachable topic. What purpose is to bloat an article with it? It is just one click away and its separation does not break the logic of the article in any way. I also intend to expand the list with brief annotations. `'mikka 22:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into Computational geometry. The guide to layout says that all books which a reader would find useful ought to be listed in a further reading section. If that list has too many books--that is, if some of them aren't important enough that they should be included in the article to prevent it becoming too large--then the solution is simply not to include every book, but rather only those books which will be particularly useful. This requires some use of judgment from a knowledgable person, but is probably the best solution. --Sopoforic 06:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- In this particular case all books are quite different in subject coverage. Therefore, like I said, I am going to provide brief annotations for these books. This will considerably bloat the main article. I'd rather suggest this page is already merged articles about separate books. Rephrasing, all these books are notable each in its own aspect, but this domain of knownledge is quite narrow, and it makes sense to see side-by-side comparison of these books, rather than to have them in separate articles, prone for aggression from those who think that only pokemon, porn stars and sexual slang are notable topics. Unfortunately experts in computational geometry do not rush into wikipedia, rather in opposite direction (I did notice several familiar names, who quickly became disinterested in wikipediting) `'mikka 20:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- From a brief reading of the list and the topics suggested by their titles, it seems to me that several of these books would be appropriate on more specific articles--in particular, Combinatorial geometry has a separate page, as does Art gallery theorems. The fact that the books differ in coverage then seems (to me) to be because some of them are about different topics which we also have articles for. If that's the case, then those books should be listed on the appropriate articles. It's true that an annotated list of books on a topic is useful, but there's no reason you can't annotate a further reading list. Also, if the books truly are all important (i.e. introduced major theorems or ideas) then they may merit a mention in the main article (in a history section, perhaps) for that reason. At any rate, wikipedia is not paper and there is no reason we can't include all relevant (and verifiable) information, as long as we are careful about the presentation. I just feel that it's more useful to present it on the article rather than in a separate list. --Sopoforic 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Providing 'brief annotations' for the books is Original Research, instead you need to provide 3rd party references stating that these books are the best in their respective fields. That is the point of this AfD which still has not been addressed. There is no source stating that these books are any better or worse than any others, or that they provide a complete background to the topic. --Steve (Slf67) talk 23:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- You started trolling, colleague. <plonk> `'mikka 02:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, not quite. I envisioned such annotations not as "this book is totally cooler than the previous one," but more along the lines of "this book contains a section on algorithms for foo," which is more useful and not at all original research. --Sopoforic 16:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Give me a break, man. I have four computers at home, but only two hands and two pairs of glasses. But this is not a reason for article deletion. I agree with you, but if I decide to write a detailed report about some book, I will write a separate page about it (and some smartass will probably come and say "WTF, prove that this book is better than the rest or write about all other books, otherwise I delete it because you are POV-pushing"). `'mikka 19:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm advocating merging this into the main article on computational geometry--I don't want any information to be lost, I just think it's better presented along with the subject of the books, where people will see it more readily. Regarding deleting an article about a book: if someone did that, though, they'd probably be wrong. If you wanted to write an article about a book that was actually notable, according to our own guidelines, then the existence of articles on other books has no bearing on this. Their claim may mean we'd have to go through an AfD for the book, but in the end things should work themselves out. I don't think that keeping this article just as a prophylactic measure against future problems is a good idea, though. --Sopoforic 21:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- (Please try to remain civil. Describing other editors as trolls and smartasses because they initiated a community discussion into an article is not considered appropriate behaviour. Thanks. --Steve (Slf67) talk 04:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC))
- Give me a break, man. I have four computers at home, but only two hands and two pairs of glasses. But this is not a reason for article deletion. I agree with you, but if I decide to write a detailed report about some book, I will write a separate page about it (and some smartass will probably come and say "WTF, prove that this book is better than the rest or write about all other books, otherwise I delete it because you are POV-pushing"). `'mikka 19:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Providing 'brief annotations' for the books is Original Research, instead you need to provide 3rd party references stating that these books are the best in their respective fields. That is the point of this AfD which still has not been addressed. There is no source stating that these books are any better or worse than any others, or that they provide a complete background to the topic. --Steve (Slf67) talk 23:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- From a brief reading of the list and the topics suggested by their titles, it seems to me that several of these books would be appropriate on more specific articles--in particular, Combinatorial geometry has a separate page, as does Art gallery theorems. The fact that the books differ in coverage then seems (to me) to be because some of them are about different topics which we also have articles for. If that's the case, then those books should be listed on the appropriate articles. It's true that an annotated list of books on a topic is useful, but there's no reason you can't annotate a further reading list. Also, if the books truly are all important (i.e. introduced major theorems or ideas) then they may merit a mention in the main article (in a history section, perhaps) for that reason. At any rate, wikipedia is not paper and there is no reason we can't include all relevant (and verifiable) information, as long as we are careful about the presentation. I just feel that it's more useful to present it on the article rather than in a separate list. --Sopoforic 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- In this particular case all books are quite different in subject coverage. Therefore, like I said, I am going to provide brief annotations for these books. This will considerably bloat the main article. I'd rather suggest this page is already merged articles about separate books. Rephrasing, all these books are notable each in its own aspect, but this domain of knownledge is quite narrow, and it makes sense to see side-by-side comparison of these books, rather than to have them in separate articles, prone for aggression from those who think that only pokemon, porn stars and sexual slang are notable topics. Unfortunately experts in computational geometry do not rush into wikipedia, rather in opposite direction (I did notice several familiar names, who quickly became disinterested in wikipediting) `'mikka 20:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into computational geometry per Ruud's excellent suggestion. With all due appreciation for the valuable expansion of the original skimpy list, article bloat is not an impending problem. After merging we'll have an estimated length of 15K. By the time the article becomes unwieldy because of the envisaged expansions, it is more likely that the remedy is found in spinning off specialized subtopics than in having this list as a separate article (and see also Soporific's suggestion above). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs).
- 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.