Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of innovative inventions

List of innovative inventions

All inventions are thought to be "innovative"; thus all inventions can't possibly be listed. "Innovative" is extremely prone to POV and cannot be applied in an NPOV, encyclopedic manner. -- Bumm13 12:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Delete.-- Bumm13 12:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The article can be moved to a different name, but because the article is on VFD it cannot be moved otherwhise it would be wiki-right. If the list of a list of inventions then people can add to it and such. If the page is merged into Timeline of invention, minus the comments - add the dates, I don't see a problem...

• Delete. All inventions are innovative, by definition. Thus, this list is inherently POV. A useful list might be "List of world-changing/highly influential inventions/discoveries", which would include things such as the printing press, anasthetic, fire, firearms, penicillin, telephony, digital computers, and the internet. This list would need to qualify entries by discussing their importance. CryptoDerk 12:47, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, sure they are innovation by definition. Maybe this article can be such as starting point to your idea of QUOTE ""List of world-changing/highly influential inventions/discoveries", which would include things such as the printing press, anasthetic, fire, firearms, penicillin, telephony, digital computers, and the internet." END QUOTE... Then you wouldn't have a reason to justify your decision *smirk* squash 02:20, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Also a list. Either of which alone would make it worth zapping. --Improv 18:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'Zapping', If you are so paranoid about deleting it why don't you just slap a VFD on every 'list of ...' article you can see (sarcastic). Basing your decision, just because it is a list is ludicrious as the Wikipedia has a whole range of lists.

I vote delete for most but not all lists, that make it to VfD. That's enough for me. I occasionally add things to VfD, but not too often. I do oppose lists, but until there's more consensus to do so, I'm not going to be adding them here. --Improv 01:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-encyclopedic list. Title from the Department of Repetitive Redundancies Bureau, Replicated Reiterations Division. — Gwalla | Talk 22:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me but, is List of sexual slang - encyclopedic... Show me why and get your facts straight before providing such a comment. The article's name can be moved accordingly and should not be the basis for your decision. squash 02:20, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

• Merge into Timeline of invention squash 02:00, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and rework; Look, while some of you may not be happy, currently, lists are valid wikipedia articles, and incomplete lists are permitted, so, unless someone has an objection other than "incomplete list" it should be kept. Posiduck 02:23, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Um, several people have pointed out objections other than "it's just a list". CryptoDerk 02:28, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

The only non "it's a list" objection was the complaint that its inherently POV, based on the fact that it will be incomplete. As for the "all inventions are innovative" argument; at least one use of innovate is "to revolutionize"; and some inventions did no such thing. Posiduck 02:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

After checking several dictionaries, I can find none that say that "innovate" means "to revolutionize", except as an archaic usage. Additionally, I can find several sources that say that "innovation" is a synonym of "invention", hence this title is indeed redundnat. CryptoDerk 04:44, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, but rename. Am I missing something here? The article is a list of influential inventions. It says so explicitly. People here seem to be complaining that the title is POV-based, even though the title doesn't reflect what the page is actually being used for. Why don't we just rename it to List of highly influential inventions, as suggested by CryptoDerk, and expand it? Providing more commentary and justification for each invention should also be done in the article. Deletion isn't a good way of fixing articles when we have problems with the title but not the content. Factitious 05:17, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I think the issue with this argument is that there's already such a list (as pointed out above). No need to rename this. CryptoDerk 05:39, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

That list is very long, and includes many inventions that presumably wouldn't be included in a list focusing only on extremely influential inventions. The phatoptiken projector and leaf blower, for example. Also, the timeline of invention doesn't provide statements justifying the importance of each invention, which, as has been stated a couple times above, would be necessary in a list attempting to single out the more important inventions. I think that the current status of this article shows that it's not meant to be an all-encompassing list of every invention (despite the unfortunate and misleading title). Factitious 06:04, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Invention and Innovation are NOT synonyms. An invention can generate innovation when it creates value for people and societies. In 2003 there has been 1 million patents (aka inventions) but it would be hard to say that there have been 1 million innovations !! Problem lies in the hard definition of relevant metrics to define when something can be defined "innovative". For example the automobile gnenerated the assembly lines in plants, it permitted commuting, it has generated several new industries like transports ...

• Delete This is a list without any useful content. We all understand the inherent value of post-its and the like, but this is hardly encyclopedic. Anna nym 02:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Innovative is POV. And IMHO this is not a misnamed List of highly influential inventions. Rubik's cube and Post-Its? What happened to the plough, the wheel, and the gun. --Jll 13:28, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)