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 keep. ✗plicit 00:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The only sources presented are for trivial facts about Nobel Prizes and have nothing to do with this specific intersection of "ethnicity" and "some other thing". On top of that, "Asian" is not really an ethnicity and is also a very large intersection, stretching all the way from Turkey to islands in the middle of the Pacific, and covering dozens of countries and ethnicities and billions of people: the relation between most of the listed winners here is, similarly, at best, very tenuous: if too broad groupings are unacceptable for categories, I very much doubt that a list based on such a grouping is acceptable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't understand the nominator's comments about ethnicity. Asia is a geographic region, and the article is written accordingly. What ever the confusion here, doesn't seem to justify deletion. CT55555 (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in both Category:Lists of Nobel laureates by ethnicity and Category:Lists of Asian people. Asia is too large a geographic region for this grouping to be pertinent. I don't see what this intersection of "people from Asia" and "Nobel winners" provides as useful encyclopedic content. One could similarly make thousands of other intersections without any of them being pertinent or encyclopedic. Simply because this one is about the Nobels doesn't exempt it from that: notability (or suitability for a Wikipedia article) is neither automatic nor inherited. We don't have List of Asian Fields medalists or List of Asian Oscar winners; nor do we have List of European Nobel laureates; or List of North American Nobel laureates. Simply because someone thought that the intersection of A and B was interesting does not make it suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it's got an incorrect category added. That's easy to fix. I don't think that's a reason to delete. Nor do I think the ethnicity confusion is relevant.
I think the question here is if the interaction of Asia and Nobel prize winners is notable. What did your WP:BEFORE find? Anything? CT55555 (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that would qualify as either a reliable source (read: Wikipedia mirrors) or significant coverage. I can find some coverage about specific sub-sections of Asia (i.e. China [1][2]; or maybe "East Asia"/"South Asia" [3][4]); but nothing about a grouping as wide as the one taken by this list (i.e. nothing which covers the whole of Asia to its maximum geographic extant, from Turkey to the Pacific, as one single group)). And this is still fundamentally an intersection of "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X" and "something else"; and given the lack of sources which talk about this large grouping or how it is a culturally significant phenomenon, also fails WP:NOT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN, this group is discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, e.g. AAPI Key Facts 2018 (NIH, "Asians have been the recipients in all Nobel award categories. The first Asian recipient, Rabindranath Tagore, was awarded the Literature Prize in 1913. To date, there have been 69 Asian winners of the Nobel Prize, 11 within the Physics, Chemistry and Physiology/Medicine categories."), The amazing history of the Nobel Prize, told in maps and charts (Washington Post, 2013, "All of Asia, despite being by far the largest and most populous region in the world, can claim only 49 Nobel laureates."), International Relations of Asia (2014, pp. 23-24, discussing Asian Nobel laureates as a group), A Handbook of Political Geography (2021, pp. 120-122, discussing Asian Nobel laureates). Beccaynr (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[5] is a short paragraph with a very basic-statement-of-fact feel and clearly doesn't constitute "significant coverage" of the topic as required per WP:GNG. All of Asia, in [6], clearly refers to a different grouping than the one of this article (which, just if it wasn't actually obvious enough; the article as it stands actually includes nearer to 80 winners...); and is not really in-depth coverage of any particular region. The next source is similarly not significant coverage. A trivial one-liner that "Asians have begun to garner an increasing share of Nobel Prizes" is not SIGCOV under any meaning of the term; and the listing which follows again seems very much limited to what really is South-East Asia (China, the Indian peninsula, Japan, ...). In short, the sources you have show this actually fails LISTN. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sources help address your apparent concern that no sources have ever addressed the group or set of Asian Nobel laureates, and the second two are in-depth discussion of Asian Nobel laureates; all four independent and reliable sources discuss the group or set, and the in-depth coverage can help address concerns you raise about defining the parameters of the group. Beccaynr (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources discussing Asian nobel laureates: Cores, Peripheries, and Globalization (2011, p. 259), The Future Is Asian (2019, p. 354). More than snippets are available in previews of these sources, similar to the other books noted above. Beccaynr (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are not saying that of the "first two sources", one does not use the same definition of Asia as this list (come on, there's a bloody map, look at it); and the other one is only a few basic-statement-of-fact sentences (neither encyclopedic nor significant coverage). Those are again trivial mentions and not significant coverage. The first of the additional sources only has a grand total of 4 or 5 sentences on "Asian Nobel laureates" (in the midst of a much wider discussion); The second one I can't access but judging again how it probably is a short mention on a single page, that would again not be SIGCOV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you try the "Search inside" feature with the page numbers I provided or use the Gbooks search feature at the top of this page to click on the links to the title of the books. And a detailed discussion of "Asian Nobel laureates" in the context of a wider discussion is secondary commentary and analysis that supports the notability of the group. And I am sorry that your inability to access a source, cited as pp. 120-122, that has a section titled "Culture" and begins with a bolded "Nobel Prizes" and then proceeds into a detailed discussion about Asian Nobel laureates across three pages (for a total of nearly two pages of content), seems to lead you to conclude it is "probably is a short mention on a single page". Beccaynr (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second one I can't access but judging again how it probably is a short mention on a single page, that would again not be SIGCOV.
How can you tell if you can't access it? ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 22:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while it is potentially a broad group, since it has been discussed in reliable sources it is an encyclopedic topic and NOTDIRECTORY does not apply. Hut 8.5 12:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't "been discussed in reliable sources as an encyclopedic topic". It might have been trivially mentioned here or there, but none of the above sources (where coverage of Asian Nobel winners is usually at most a few sentences) can be considered "significant coverage". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confusing WP:NOTDIRECTORY (your rationale for deleting this) with WP:LISTN. The former has nothing to do with the depth of coverage. And since one of the sources given is about 2 pages of content I don't agree that the only coverage is trivial. Hut 8.5 11:36, 25 May 2022 (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.