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. MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category-masquerading-as-an-article. Lacks any encyclopedic prose which is not just generic information about the Nobel Prizes or unsourced commentary, fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and is redundant to the existing category structure; and on top of that seems to include some amount of WP:V-failing material (which might as well be WP:OR) with the "also included sometimes" and "some Hungarian background" sections RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And jointly nominating all of the below too, for the same reasons:
(a few others have been nominated separately for different even more persuasive reasons) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All – All are qualified for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to their respective categories: "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." These articles also serve as functional navigational aids as per WP:LISTPURP. For example, over the last 30 days, the List of Hungarian Nobel laureates page received a daily average of 21 page views per day, while the Category:Hungarian Nobel laureates page only received a daily average of 1 page view per day. Articles that would benefit from more sources for verification purposes can have maintenance templates requesting this work added to them. North America1000 12:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTSTATS is a much stronger argument than some guideline about that. Lists are in article space and therefore subject to the standards of article space: articles should provide encyclopedic prose and context beyond mere trivialities. data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Page views are not convincing arguments for notability, much less for failing WP:NOT. If the articles were deleted, the exact same information would be available to the readers via categories (which would likely get a boost), which are the more appropriate way to organise this than some OR/NOT lists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CLN, Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other.Beccaynr (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Explained below (articles which are in effect duplicative of categories and which have no additional content whatsoever don't belong per WP:NOT); but I'll note that even if that were not the case, as pointed out below, a list by country already exists, so these sub-lists are really useless duplication, not just of the categories but of the existing list as well. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTSTATS is concerning "excessive listings of unexplained statistics", but fact is, these articles are not statistical in nature. They do not present averages of sample values, regression analysis, sample sizes, statistical assumptions, statistical inferences, probability distributions, margins of error, etc. Sure, some of these would be improved by the addition of more background information regarding the various subjects, but the content in them simply provides basic information, as many list articles typically do. For an example of what actually comprises statistical content, see Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election § Two-way race. North America1000 07:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete All - Unnecessary content forks of List of Nobel laureates by country. A list article for seperate nationalities is not useful as users can easily navigate to the respective section on List of Nobel laureates by country and continue from there. Golem08 (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sources you give have little to do with specific countries (being behind a paywall doesn't help, but even from the titles, they might be useful for a List of Nobel laureates by country, but not for a List of Nobel laureates from ''foo'' country); and one which lists "which country has the most Nobel laureates" is in no way an indicator that a listing by-individual-country provides anything encyclopedically pertinent. Wikipedia is not a directory nor an indiscriminate collection of information. If the only thing that can be said about Nobel winners from foo country is "Here is a list of Nobel winners from foo country", then the list is not an appropriate encyclopedic entry, because it has no encyclopedic content, as it is a bare listing, not in anyway an insightful "summary of knowledge" as an encyclopedia ought to be. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That source manages to name not a single Nobel laureate. That source ([1]) is in fact mostly not about any single country. It might be pertinent for List of Nobel laureates by country; but I don't see how any of the content in that source would be useful for any of the article above, except maybe as some very generic context - in fact, except for appearing in some of the charts, only very few countries are even directly mentioned - and those that are are mostly what would in any other context clearly be a trivial mention (i.e. he top 10 countries with the most Nobel laureates, in order. Pay attention to how top-heavy this list is; the numbers drop precipitously: [followed by a straight top-ten listing] is not sufficient depth of coverage to write an encyclopedic article on any one of those countries) and not significant coverage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LISTN, One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. These are lists of individuals who form the notable group, because the grouping of Nobel winners by geography and nationality is a notable topic. These shorter lists by country are WP:SPINOFFs that allow more detail, images, and information to be added as compared to the brief summary style at List of Nobel laureates by country. Beccaynr (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the reference to WP:NOTDUP to be very relevant and convincing rebuttal for the deletion justification. CT55555 (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep all List articles are real articles. We can have a category and a list too. One of several good reasons is that the list can provide more information than the category, which is really just links. Strong arguments above to keep. These lists are extraordinarily WP:DISCRIMINATE and many would say even "elite" -- there is nothing "indiscriminate" about them.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How disappointingly incorrect. One could even think they're on Reddit and say "r/confidentlyincorrect". WP:INDISCRIMINATE says quite unambiguously that To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. None of these lists do any of that - they are raw listings which duplicate categories and provide no "summary of knowledge" to readers. And notability (or suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia) is not inherited. The Nobels might be notable, but every single sub-division or possible intersection of the group with another is not instantaneously acceptable. As for the list-vs-category argument, there is already a more global list, List of Nobel laureates by country, one which isn't unnecessarily split and with often OR inclusion criteria (for example, is Emilio Segrè really an "Italian" Nobel laureate? Not only was he a citizen of the USA when the award was given to him, but the work he undertook which resulted in him getting the Nobel also happened in the USA. Same with Riccardo Giacconi). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Um... "reddit" ?? that's just WP:STRAWMAN ("This list is not notable and I'm wrong because--Reddit") - as to the content of the list (such as is Emilio Segrè really an "Italian" Nobel laureate?) those would be editing issues and not deletion issues. At most, discuss them on the article talk page. Even if one or several of those on the list are incorrectly on the list (and I'm not saying that they are or are not), that would not mean to delete the entire article. AFD is not cleanup.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that every single one of these articles has the same WP:OR issues and the same WP:INDISCRIMINATE issues (one which you clumsily try to dismiss by implying that this being an "elite" grouping does not make this indiscriminate) means this clearly falls under both WP:DELREASON no. 14 (due to failing WP:NOT) and no. 6 (due to failing WP:OR). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WABBITSEASON just saying the same argument over and over again does nothing for either of us. I leave it to whoever closes this discussion to decide if the topic does or does not pass WP:OR, WP:LISTN, and all the other arguments brought forth.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the nominator's arguments are fundamentally flawed. Category-masquerading-as-an-article: it's fine to have a category and a list on the same topic per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, so this argument has no value. Lacks any encyclopedic prose which is not just generic information about the Nobel Prizes: this isn't an article, it's a list, and we don't expect lists to have substantial prose. This standard, if adopted, would lead to the deletion of most featured lists on Wikipedia, and so it's well outside community expectations. seems to include some amount of WP:V-failing material: the idea that the lists are unverifiable is clearly wrong as it's entirely possible to verify someone's nationality and the fact they won a Nobel prize. If there are problems with individual entries in individual lists, then that is a very poor reason to delete and contradicts the deletion policy. Nor is it an unencyclopedic topic, as Nobel laureates are clearly encyclopedic and nationality is an obvious cross-categorisation. The idea that this is redundant to List of Nobel laureates by country is a more sensible argument, but that list is long enough that we should be considering splitting into sublists anyway, the sortable tables in each of these lists are more useful than the unformatted list presented there, and it would have to be a redirect rather than deletion because these are plausible search terms. Hut 8.5 07:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, actually, we don't expect lists to have substantial prose is just false. WP:FLCR clearly says that lists should have high-quality prose; a substantial lead; and that this should be comprehensive. A list which only has "Here's a list of foo from country bar" does not meet any of that. Simply because foo happens to be "Nobel prize winners" does not make this issue disappear: it makes it in fact more obvious how, indeed, most intersections of A and B (heck, if we can't say anything substantial about Nobel winners, figure what we can say about other, less significant awards) are not suitable groupings for an encyclopedic article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confusing Wikipedia:Featured list criteria with Wikipedia:Notability (specifically WP:LISTN). "Featured List Criteria" is a wonderful project page outlining what that project wants lists to eventually look like and qualify for a featured list. However, 1) it's not a deletion criteria of any sort; and 2) the word "substantial" or any similar reference describing the detail of prose just isn't there. Failing WP:FLCR is not grounds for deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You think that this list should be deleted because it doesn't meet featured content standards? That's beyond ridiculous and I hoped you knew better than than to argue that. It's true that at the FL level lists usually have a paragraph or two to introduce the topic, often duplicating the relevant article, but the absence of something like that doesn't mean the list should be deleted and even FLs don't usually have significant prose outside the lead. Hut 8.5 16:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You can't bring up an incorrect statement and then double down with a strawman. You brought up the idea "we don't expect lists to have substantial prose". As my comments prove, we actually do, and if they don't, and the prose is so lacking in substance as to be merely "Here's a list of [List titlte]", then it also fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE as data lacking context or encyclopedic value. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's time to call in a third party of some kind. We clearly are having serious disconnection on the matter at hand and any policies, guidelines, and rules that come into affect.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a neutral observer here, I !voted keep. But as a non-neutral observer, I suggest people pause. We can see the points of disagreement and you might not all reach consensus, and maybe that's OK. Who ever closes can see the differing perspectives. CT55555 (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all – More information can be put into those articles than there is in one section of the List of Nobel laureates by country. They may include, for example, the image and lifespan of a Nobel laureate and the reasons for receiving the Nobel Prize in more detail. Other important or interesting information, such as information about career of a Nobel laureate, can also be added to those articles. While those articles aren’t as comprehensive as they could be, they contain enough information to keep them. Luurankosoturi (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I agree with what Hut 8.5 has written, which seems straightforward. I have no idea why List of Pakistani Nobel laureates appears here (with four entries) and yet the featured listList of Indian Nobel laureates does not. Perhaps it's because a few lines have been added to the lead. Splitting the list by countries as Hut 8.5 suggests seems like a good idea, particularly when the number of entries is small, so that the use of the word "statistics" has no meaning (all entries are exceptional). The image and caption connected for List of Israeli Nobel laureates is informative. Mathsci (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beyond the usual stalking by Mathsci (evidence detailed elsewhere) and some claims about how geography is inherently a notable grouping, none of the keep comments addresses the lack of reliable sources discussing about each of these intersections or the often very obviously OR content of a fair few of them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody can !vote here, per standard wikipedia policy. As edit histories/diffs show, lists of Israeli, Russian and Hungarian Nobel laureates were first mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Nobel laureates by religion (several being Jewish emigrées, like Eugene Wigner). Knowledge of the use of statistics and its significance requires training, usually at university in a scientific environment: selecting exceptional scientists, writers or humanitarians in physics, chemistry, medicine, economics, literature and peace is not a random process. That is true in particular when applied to a small number from India or Pakistan. Is it so hard to create four sentences for a lead paragraph involving Pakistan (or similar countries)? The multiple edits attempting to delete the featured list — List of female Nobel laureates — were unhelpful; the "initiative" Draft:Systematic bias of Nobel Prizes has apparently been abandoned. Mathsci (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I haven't edited something in a few days doesn't mean it's been abandoned, it just means other things have gotten in the way. Now stop following me around and spare me the fancy explanations how you got involved in a topic you never edited before. The long sentence about Knowledge of the use of statistics seems like an obtuse attempt at saying I don't have a clue, which is either just impolite, or a deliberately thinly veiled personal attack, or both. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My editing history and diffs shows that I mentioned the three lists in the AfD above and only after that were they listed for AfD. I agree with the statements of Hut 8.5 and others, which I now reaffirm with the previous !vote. The mathematical physics statements concerning Eugene Wigner (and von Neumann) were mentioned a month ago in an article talk page. As long ago as 2006, I mentioned Physics laureate Gerard 't Hooft in a now deleted BLP; it was later kept as a pseudoscience article Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory — a cautionary tale about delusions of grandeur. Mathsci (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]
None of these provide in-depth (i.e. "significant" as required by the guidelines) coverage of specific countries. An entry in a stats table or an infographic is not significant coverage. Coverage of "Nobel prizes by country" is not necessarily coverage of "Nobel prizes in country X", and even if "country X" happens to be mentioned somewhere, there is no guarantee such a mention (the first of the sources you list is an obvious example of this) is substantial enough to write an encyclopedic article (as opposed to a directory cross-categorisation) on it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LISTN, The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been, and the grouping of geographic origin is documented by multiple independent and reliable sources. Also, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability and this discussion has also included the benefits of these lists and how they can present more information and be further developed. Beccaynr (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without prejudice to the sources already mention, the following book provides significant coverage:
Hargittai, István. The road to Stockholm: Nobel Prizes, science, and scientists. Chemical Heritage Foundation, 2002. CT55555 (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With a title like that, the book could be about literally anything related to Nobels. Does that book specifically cover the intersections/groups of "Nobel laureates from country X", in a more encyclopedic fashion than merely a listing in a stats table? If so, on which pages exactly? @Becca: A trivial mention in a stats table, consisting of a country's name and the number of Nobels it won, is not a justification for an article as articles are not stats tables. I do not see how the list fulfills any "recognized informational, navigation or development purpose". All the articles about Nobel laureates already exists, and the lists do not provide any additional information, except some WP:OR about "also included sometimes" people or the like. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it dos cover the intersection of nobel laureates by country. That is why I mentioned it in the context of telling you it's a book that provides significant coverage of the topic we are discussing at AfD.
It cover the topic on so many pages that it would be overwhelming to list them. It's a key theme in the book.
I get the impression that you doubt the accuracy of my statement, and are struggling to assume good faith here, so to help you with that, I'll just pick one example, Hungary, the one that you've used as the pilot/example. The book talks about Hungary 26 times in the context of Nobel prizes, with the clearest examples of what would be needed on pages 30, 36, 38, 47, 120. CT55555 (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the accuracy of your statement, because previous examples (like the Al Jazeera infographics; or the other news articles which cover [to the level required by SIGCOV] the broad topic of Nobels and geography, but not the specific and more narrow intersections of "Nobel winners" and "country X") were unambiguously not significant coverage. P. 30 is a trivial mention of Hungary in a listing along with half a dozen other countries (The emerging pattern is that Germany, Austria, Canada, Hungary, Italy, and Poland, in decreasing order, have exported the largest number of Nobel laureates. is not SIGCOV of "Nobel laureates from Hungary"; nor of any of the others) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The book, as a whole thing, provides significant coverage. Any one sentence taken in isolation and quoted without the rest of it, is obviously going to seem less significant. It seems disingenuous to quote only one line of a book in this context.
Would you quote one line from a book about IBM computers and then say it was trivial because the line only mentioned IBMs once?
Your approach to this debate suggests that no amount of new information will cause you to update your analysis here. I find it quite strange that even in the context of me pointing out a book that is very much about the topic in hand, and telling you the multiple pages where this topic is discussed, that you're still debating this. CT55555 (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What can be significant coverage of "Nobel prizes by country" or "Geographic distribution of Nobel prizes" is not necessarily significant coverage of "Nobel prizes in country X" for all X. Coverage of "Sexism" or "Sexism across the world" is not necessarily coverage of "Sexism in country X"; coverage of "[Insert random sport here]" is not necessarily coverage of "[Insert random sport here] in country X". Same difference. The sources you show all have significant coverage of the broad topic, but not of individual, narrower intersections. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to discuss the individual merits of every article, nominating 14 articles into one AFD discussion page seems like a suboptimal way to do that. It implies to me that you see them as all notable, or all not. So I've chosen Hungary as the one to refute, which seems like a logical way to proceed, based on the choices you've made. If you wanted 14 different discussions, you probably should have started 14 AfDs. CT55555 (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The section titled "Citizens of the World", at pp. 30 - 34, appears to be an example of significant coverage of geographic groups and sets in that book, with further discussion of geographic origin at p. 38. Beccaynr (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With the exception of one weak delete, it's a bit WP:SNOWBALL keep here, with seven editors !voting keep, and several of us making long, detailed, repeated explanations why and only the nominator appearing to disagree with any of the keep arguments. I suggest this be withdrawn, rather than taking up more time discussing this, when the outcome seems clear. CT55555 (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, redundant to self-maintaining categories. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check out WP:NOTDUP where it states, "it is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative". North America1000 09:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article-space stuff stills needs to meet article-space requirements (and I'll point at WP:NOT, which is actually policy). Pointing at NOTDUP as though it were some magic wand is as unconvincing as it is a tired argument. One should also see WP:SALAT. If the only thing a list does is duplicate a category, without any evidence that the specific intersection it covers is notable (even if some people shout at the top of their lungs that it is inherently notable because "Nobels" or something); and without any informative stuff to say to our readers, then, emphatically, no, it is not a good way to present this (non-)information. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the categories could be considered as being redundant to these list articles. Content in Main namespace articles is verifiable per the use of inline citations and references, whereas category content is not verified or sourced. If anything, the categories are inferior, rather than the articles. North America1000 12:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article-space stuff stills needs to meet article-space requirements. You can't have a "List of Nobel laureates by [insert random characteristic here]" for every such random characteristic even if the information about [insert random characteristic here] is verifiable. If there is no source which has written specifically about the intersection of "Nobel laureates" and "random characteristic", then it doesn't belong in article space. No source has been presented here which does more than cover the broad topic of "geographic distribution/bias/ of Nobel laureates", or maybe trivially say "X country has Y Nobel laureates" without going into any further detail (thus clearly not being the necessary WP:SIGCOV). There are plenty of categories which are split along nationality or other criteria - for usually valid reasons - without those being proper subjects for lists or articles in article-space. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Valid navigational and informational list. DreamFocus 23:34, 4 June 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.