Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scattering experiments

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. (non-admin closure) f e minist 14:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of scattering experiments

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

Discussed briefly at WT:PHYS - concerns are that it is too broad and the term too ambiguous. Basically, almost every experiment in particle physics would be on this list. This would be better served as a category (or a slight modification of existing ones). Primefac (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No rationale for existence. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Per WP:LISTPURP, lists have three main purposes: to provide information; assist navigation and aid development. Andrew D. (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:LISTN as entire books are written about such experiments, e.g. Perfect/Complete Scattering Experiments; Experimental Neutron Scattering; High Energy Nucleon-nucleon Scattering Experiments at Berkeley; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable examples to Scattering and delete. I agree with the nom that the criterion is too broad. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger and deletion are incompatible – see WP:MAD. Andrew D. (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curses, foiled again [twirls moustache]. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, it's too broad. To respond to Andrew D's point, entire books are written about tiny subsets of all scattering experiments. An analogy would be if someone proposed "list of historical people". One could also say truthfully that "entire books are written about such people", for example any history book. That fact doesn't address the complaint that the list is too broad. --Steve (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Too broad" is not an issue for either policy or practise. For example, we already have List of experiments, which is more general. We also have plenty of other very general list names including list of people; list of books; list of places; &c. Such large lists are typically structured as a hierarchy and so that would be a sensible approach for experiments too. If scattering experiments are divided into different classes then we can continue the hierarchy as needed. Lists are quite flexible in their construction and that's why, per WP:CLN, they have many advantages over categories. Andrew D. (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You made a telling error by omitting the s in lists of people, lists of books, lists of places. All three of these are lists of lists, which is appropriate for extraordinarily broad categories. I would not be opposed to a list of lists of scattering experiments, if we already had a bunch of appropriate sub-lists like "list of resonant x-ray scattering experiments", "list of spin-polarized heavy ion scattering experiments", etc. etc. As for list of experiments, I think it's a terrible page and I would support deleting that too. We shouldn't refrain from deleting one bad page just because there are other equally bad pages out there. --Steve (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While Steve doesn't like the broad list of experiments, we should note that it is rated "High Importance" by the History of Science WikiProject. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it is rated "High Importance" by the History of Science WikiProject... So what? Even Steve is wrong and list of experiments falls 100% within the guidelines, it does not follow that the list of scattering experiments should be kept as well. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - In many cases, I think lists better serve our readers than categories and this could be one such case. The breadth of types of scattering experiments is such that the scattering and scattering theory pages do not give much coverage to individual experiments. Providing an annotated list of experiments would give readers a different view with a different kind of specificity than the broader articles (yes, this is a version of ILIKEIT, but it is also an explanation of why I think the list is encyclopedic). I also agree that listing in this way is not OR, as there are RS as Andrew D points out that give similar lists. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – It looks a little better when split between specific experiments and general categories thereof, but I wouldn't be heartbroken to see it go. XOR'easter (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I expanded and structured the page somewhat, so now it looks to me like a decent stub. XOR'easter (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on previously responses, and my own knowledge that scattering experiments are significant. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2017 (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.