Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of black Nobel laureates

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. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of black Nobel laureates[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:V, WP:NLIST, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY (to quote almost exactly: people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X who have won award Y...) 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", thus this probably also borderline fails WP:NOR as a topic which has nothing published about it elsewhere is OR by definition. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I read the guidance at WP:NOTDIRECTORY in full: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. I find that less convincing than they way you quoted it. But I'm not sure. It seems to me that this is encyclopaedic, that winning a nobel is very notable, and that racial inequity in winning is a notable topic:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/10/12/nobel-prize-gender-race-gap/
https://abcnews.go.com/International/nobel-prize-foundation-fire-rejecting-ethnic-gender-quotas/story?id=80536436

I don't think this article is well cited, and so I see room to improve, but it does seem to be encyclopedic and the guidance that we've both quoted is prefaced by Non-encyclopedic and therefore my reading is that as long as it's encyclopedic, nothing after those words therefore matters. I lean keep, but keen to see what others thing before !voting. CT55555 (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of that (like with the similar by-religion or even the gender list) would seem to support content for a Systematic bias of Nobel Prizes article (since the only sources about this are indeed about the bias). Notability is not inherited, so even if the Nobel is a "very notable" prize, that doesn't mean every article which discusses some aspect of it is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the creation of a systemic bias article, but I think this list should get to stay, for the exact same reasons that User:Beccaynr made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_female_Nobel_laureates CT55555 (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN and cleanup as needed. This topic has has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, e.g. Towards Producing Black Nobel Laureates Affiliated with African Universities (APS March Meeting Abstracts 2016, presenting the notable group and then adding research and analysis), African Gold: The Story of Africa's Nobel Laureates (2008, e.g. p. 9, discussing 'so few black Nobel laureates'), Abdulrazak Gurnah wins the 2021 Nobel prize in literature (Guardian 2021, "No black African writer has won the prize since Wole Soyinka in 1986. Gurnah is the first black writer to win since Toni Morrison in 1993."), No black scientist has ever won a Nobel – that's bad for science, and bad for society (The Conversation/Phys.org, 2018, "a painful reminder that of the more than 900 Nobel laureates, only 14 (1.5%) have been black and none in science."), The Nobels Overwhelmingly Go to Men — This Year's Prize For Medicine Was No Exception (NPR 2020, "All the attention given to women that year prompted Winston Morgan, a researcher at the University of East London, to check whether any Black scientist had ever won a Nobel Prize for science. He couldn't find one. [...] If a Black scientist or physician won a Nobel Prize, says Morgan, the effect would be profound. It would create "lots of optimism, both within the Black community and wider," he says."). A list of people are notable because of the secondary sources that discuss the accomplishments of the group or set. Separate articles can be created for subtopics based on secondary sources that analyze and comment on the group. Beccaynr (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources that support the notability of the group: The Nobel prizes have a gender problem, but quotas are not the solution, says head of science academy (Washington Post, 2021 "Just over a dozen Nobel Prize winners have been Black, and no Black person, male or female, has won in a science category, according to Smithsonian."), The Nobels honored 4 women this year. But the awards still lack diversity (CNN, 2020, "Of 931 individuals and 28 organizations to have won the prize since the awards began, just 16 are Black. No Black winners were named in 2020.") Beccaynr (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still not convinced a list is the best way to organise this information. The articles you find seem generally to be talking about the topic of the lack of diversity of Nobel awards, which is specific neither to Blacks nor to (to take the other similar AfD) women - in fact many of the articles you cite specifically deal with both topics and not one or the other in isolation, showing again how they aren't really talking about the subject of "female Nobel laureates" or "Black Nobel laureates" but really are talking about the Systematic bias of Nobel Prizes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From my view, these sources support the creation of multiple articles, including ones that focus on the larger group that has drawn the attention of researchers and the media - a WP list illustrates not just the lack of diversity but also the individuals who are the component parts of the notable group. From an WP:IAR standpoint, I also think it is not a great look for the encylopedia to only define marginalized groups from within the confines of their oppression (i.e. focus only on bias, systemic or otherwise) without having a place to celebrate what people have collectively accomplished, despite the various biases and other factors that may contribute to disparities but also make the group accomplishment worthy of notice. Beccaynr (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep for reasons outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Nobel Prize laureates when the article was under another name among sound arguments above pointing to WP:LISTN, WP:GNG, and I'll add WP:IMPACT. The WP:V argument is reaching quite far--is the nomination really saying that (for example) Desmond Tutu wasn't black or that he was black but didn't win the Nobel prize? The original research argument is clear bunk and the quickest google searches will lay that one to rest.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:V argument is that the only source the article cites for its topic matter is for two trivial sentences in the lead which are not about Black laureates but about Nobel prizes in general. An article which is not based on reliable sources clearly fails WP:V: the rest of the lead is entirely unsourced. WP:IMPACT is an essay and doesn't override either V or NOR concerns. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not cleanup. Discuss the content on the article's talk page rather than attempt to throw out the entire article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Following my comments above) as per Paul McDonald and Beccaynr CT55555 (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These lists have general encyclopedic value. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We are in WP:SNOWBALL keep territory now. Asking the nominator to please consider withdrawing this AfD. CT55555 (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is not a self-maintaining category and has encyclopedic relevance. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm more swayed by the keep arguments. The rarity of the Nobel Prize being awarded to black recipients is notable, and has been noted above in sources as an example of bias. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:37, 1 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.