Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Category:Female scientists

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Keep. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female scientists (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Lights and freedom has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I have no personal objection to a category for female scientists. But in its current state, all the subcategories have been deleted, so this does not make sense. This will not be helpful unless more important female scientists are included, such as Barbara McClintock (who discovered genetic transposition / crossing over) and Vera Rubin (who discovered dark matter). Lights and freedom (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

•  Delete Being a scientist does not not care about gender nor does it affect the line of work. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 00:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep. There's no substance in saying "someone's been left out, so we should bin the category"! Of course McClintock and Rubin should be added to the category. And great women scientists are indeed notable for being women because there have been so few who have reached the top. That can be seen from the list of Nobel Prize winners. The categories are really about "would a reader like to search for..." I think very obviously quite a few would be interested, and it will be harder for them if there is no relevant category. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Macdonald-ross: The question is: Should all women scientists be added to this category (in which case there will be thousands of entries), or should only the more important women scientists be added? I think either would be okay but SE WP needs to come to an agreement on this. Lights and freedom (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, if they're not notable, they should not be on the wiki at all. Notable women scientists are few enough in comparison to men to justify a category. A key issue is "would a reader be likely to ask a question, and can they easily find the answer?" In sports, for example, every young woman who does something notable is likely to be presented to the readers on the usual media. I have almost never seen a woman scientist lauded in the papers until very recently. There won't be "thousands of entries" because there have not been thousands of notable women scientists (contrast sports people). There are far more women doctors but not many (percentage-wise) are notable. That would suggest a case for female doctors having a sub-category.

One aspect of what we do with categories is to answer sensible questions. I think it's perfectly sensible for a reader to look for a category in this topic. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I can't close the nomination, but I am going to vote keep, because Macdonald-ross's arguments are convincing. I found that excluding engineers, mathematicians, and social scientists, there are less than 200 articles about female scientists here. That wouldn't be too excessive for a category, so even with one category, it could work. Lights and freedom (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep A real discussion about this problem is necessary, our current category system re: female foos is a mess, we are keeping some and deleting others. I am !voting keep to deal with all these categories at a later date once there's a true consensus about these categories instead of blindly deleting based on past RfDs. --Ferien (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This 100% needs to be kept, we should not have removed any of the others. This deleting of such categories has gotten out of hand. Clearly notable and clearly defining. -Djsasso (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 22:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.