The result was delete. The problem with many of the arguments below is that a source that merely describes something as something is not really a source of information; it's a source of wording. For all intents and purposes this list is merely a collection of links to sources, which have in common only that they share a particular, exceedingly common turn of phrase. In short, Haemo's argument that it is "excellently cited" is not convincing to me, and Carcharoth's intelligent comment that the association between the members is too loose and that the list as it stands is essentially original research is quite convincing. Chick Bowen 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This gigantic list is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information, which Wikipedia is not. It is simply a list of people loosely connected by the concept that they have been referred to as the "father" or "mother" of something, which isn't encyclopedic within itself. Core desat 05:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
::::::The perfectly good reasons is that it doesn't do anything or add to the encyclopedia. I just don't see how this helps the project out in any way. A category, maybe, but this list really isn't serving any purpose.
CaveatLector
Talk 10:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. The problem with many of the arguments below is that a source that merely describes something as something is not really a source of information; it's a source of wording. For all intents and purposes this list is merely a collection of links to sources, which have in common only that they share a particular, exceedingly common turn of phrase. In short, Haemo's argument that it is "excellently cited" is not convincing to me, and Carcharoth's intelligent comment that the association between the members is too loose and that the list as it stands is essentially original research is quite convincing. Chick Bowen 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This gigantic list is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information, which Wikipedia is not. It is simply a list of people loosely connected by the concept that they have been referred to as the "father" or "mother" of something, which isn't encyclopedic within itself. Core desat 05:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
::::::The perfectly good reasons is that it doesn't do anything or add to the encyclopedia. I just don't see how this helps the project out in any way. A category, maybe, but this list really isn't serving any purpose.
CaveatLector
Talk 10:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
reply