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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of discoveries by disciplines[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not necessarily advocating deletion outright, but this list is... too large in scope. I cannot fathom that someone looking for discoveries in biology would simultaneously be interested in Fugitives being found.

The organization is nearly impossible to make sense of, referencing is completely chaotic, there are considerable overlaps with Outline of biology, Outline of physics, combined with List of timelines#Biology, List of timelines#Physics, etc... and the article suffers from massive bloat for many things that made a fart in the popular press, but which are otherwise routine.

I'm not really sure what to do with this, but I'm leaning WP:TNTing, and converting this into a list of lists where each subfields have their own, more manageable list. Possibly making listing existing timelines and outlines and expanding those. Possibly having dedicated list of discoveries per each field. Possibly outright deletion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TNT Overly broad and indiscriminate, we don't need to combine the "notions of contrive, conceive of, design,[2] detection,[3] develop[2] devise, discernment,[3] to find,[4] identification, invention, locating and location of,[3] origination,[3][2] pioneer,[2] realization[5] unearthing" into one article. Some should be moved to the linked main articles including those above and List of drugs by year of discovery, Timeline of scientific discoveries, Timeline of chemical element discoveries, Timeline of fundamental physics discoveries, Timeline of particle discoveries. Finding "hidden marks" in a painting is hardly a discovery. Performing an autopsy on Whitney Houston and "discovering" she used a lot of drugs is not a discovery. Capturing a fugitive is not a discovery. Finding that "f---" was used back in 1310 is not a discovery. Reywas92^Talk 19:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as irredeemably, impossibly, irresponsibly indiscriminate. There are a gazillion "discoveries" as defined by this list. (Also, "writings", "history of art", etc. are not "science".) I'm also going to nominate the various List of [nationality] inventions and discoveries for the same reason. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete - I agree the article would contain too many entries; although I really do disagree with your harsh and unrealistic interpretation Reywas92, the list of criteria was added because of the policy guidelines on how to write an introduction for an article, and by following the guidelines only; all the words within the introduction relevant to defining entries for the subject discovery are true of discovery, by following only dictionary definitions of the word discovery, how exactly in any reality is it possible your position on the irrelevancy of things has a grounding in reality. I'm sure you are expressing your preference for inclusion, not maintaining your commitment to the principle of neutrality; these things simply are discoveries: "Finding "hidden marks" in a painting is hardly a discovery. Performing an autopsy on Whitney Houston and "discovering" she used a lot of drugs is not a discovery. Capturing a fugitive is not a discovery. Finding that "f---" was used back in 1310 is not a discovery." Like a child, or adult, who imagines the world must sensibly be a reality, and presented with a new set of informations which contradict that world view, reality, the mind of the child or adult, will not accept the contradiction, refutes the truth, the evidence which is real; given the factors to use to provide an argument, you literally attempt to give breath to a monstrous conclusion like the charges (brought against me also; like I have attempted to commit a crime with my allegiance to the development of the defined subject of the article, and so therefore my execution, as if I am some kind of authoritorian regime) of electricity used on pieces of grave robbed corpses, into a living thing. If I don't like the existing reality, similarly to your dislike, the difference between our positions on the unacceptableness of the truth presented to us both is your commitment to insanity as reality; if you find anywhere in sources, that science flinches then refuses to show findings, and hides the things found from sight, to make ignorance of intelligence for us all. If I'm wrong to think you really believe your own argument is true Reywas92, surely it is better to see hate in the advocate of the devils advocate (and this additionally: devils advocate), rather than a value for advancing an argument amongst all of us, being interested editors Diametakomisi (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC) (minor changes made after signature)[reply]
- it is not a secret, that it is not possible to make 1 from 2 (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/cretinous), in the disagreement between us both; you see you have won, but there is no 1 possible Reywas92, only us 2 Reywas92, if my mind should follow you Diametakomisi (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Diametakomisi: Stick to the issues and dial the drama down by 27 notches mmkay? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Diametakomisi/sandbox#List_of_discoveries_in_archaeology is now showing a response specificaly to 17:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC) "..converting this into a list of lists where each subfields have their own more manageable list.."" (and does not include any drama showing) Diametakomisi (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: really I don't mean any offense at all to you, really I don't, but; I'm sure I didn't think being too voluminous with my opinion within a response amounts to shouting; I'm sure "27 notches" is infact not keeping to the issues; I think it's projection on your part headbomb that you see anything (explosively) dramatic in my response to Reywas92; it's just that I did feel somewhat terrorised by the lack of sympathy in Reywas92's reponse); https://www.strategeast.org/armenia-jumps-27-notches-up-in-the-legatum-prosperity-index-2019/, https://vovworld.vn/en-US/news/vietnam-jumps-27-notches-in-un-competitive-industrial-performance-index-795173.vov (both went up, really I hope they both go back down again, for us both, otherwise there isn't 27 notches of anything to down, at all, that I could see, that is; i.e. it is your bad not mine (no pun intended) Diametakomisi (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Divide should be divided to separate articles; List of drugs by year of discovery already covers the subject of "discoveries in medicine", returns of List of discoveries in- paleobotany includes 2017 in paleobotany, 2018 in paleobotany, 2019 in paleobotany, 2020 in paleobotany on the 1st page), paleontology (shows 18 returns with partial matches for years in the period 2014 to 2020 (with the same titles description as found @ paleobotany) Diametakomisi (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC) (1 minor correction after signature)[reply]

@Headbomb: ! (viz. Derangement, not shouting) thus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Diametakomisi i.e. see "N", mindblowingly yours, Diametakomisi (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is basically impossible to formulate anything like sensible criteria for inclusion in a list like this. The list title is almost synonymous with "list of known facts". XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I-! (i.e. I disclaim) the article, from the position of the principal contributing editor, so it's just fine for the discussion to conclude with delete Diametakomisi (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC) (minor change after signature)[reply]

Divide the list is impressive in its scope, and useful in theory, but completely overwhelming in its current incarnation. Personally- I would love to see this split up by general topic. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.