Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University

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 no consensus. Not much to say- there's no consensus to delete this, but also no full consensus to keep it, either. Courcelles (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University[edit]

Notified: User_talk:Sephiroth_BCR, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards and prizes

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

I am nominating this for deletion because during a discussion here there was broad consensus that subcategories should be notable per se, which this list seem to fail. Sandman888 (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vote delete - it should be noted that I'm of the opinion that 90% of 'list of' articles should be removed from Wikipedia unless there's really a compelling reason for the list. Many of these lists are created to push a POV, and succeed in that aim regardless of the accuracy of the article. In this case, the relatively benign aim of the article seems to be to promote Princeton University, which isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's not the point of an encyclopedia. Nwlaw63 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Interesting format, useful information presented presumably as a "See Also" off the main Princeton University page. This is well crafted and informative and there should be a very high bar set for deletion of such fare. Not liking lists or thinking it flacks too much for a particular school do not seem to be anywhere near sufficient for deletion. Carrite (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But how does it meet the notability criteria? Specifically WP:N states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This topic has not received such coverage. Furthermore it seems like a content fork as this could be indicated on, for example, as part of a list of alumni / faculty for that university, as well as (obviously) the existing lists of nobel laureates. Sandman888 (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Would it not be more efficient to simply add a sortable "Affiliation" column to the table in List of Nobel laureates instead of creating dozens of redundant list articles? SnottyWong talk 23:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having one huge list is too much for one page. It is just a matter of size. You cant just add an affiliation column to List of Nobel laureates because it is set up as a matrix with multiple winners in each row. This is a standard almanac entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you then agree that from the List of Nobel laureates, it is perfectly legitimate to form "List of Nobel laureates who belong to X", where X can be anything? I.e. X cd be University affiliation, alma mater, race, gender, country, religion, any demographic variable. So from the list of laureates, 2-10 or so different spin-off lists can be created for each different X. Is creating all of those list a good idea in your opinion, because I think it's redundant and then there's no limit for what different categories can be combined to create lists on wikipedia. I.e. List of vegetarian Nobel laureates cd equally well be created. Sandman888 (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think reduction to absurdity is needed for the debate. This was a featured article, and the nomination appears to be a disruption to prove a point based on the debate linked above, where the nominator's proposed guideline was rejected. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not reductio ad absurdum, but a clarification of principle. However it seems that what is article worthy should not be based on any principle but on an ad hoc basis. The guideline was not rejected, if you read it carefully, you'll see that they agree with the intention. I do not think an accusation of disruption is warranted here, shd preferable be retracted. Sandman888 (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We slice and dice lists all the time, just as any almanac would do. Especially awards and prizes, the Academy Awards lists appear under numerous guises because they are so large. The only problem is that an error or a new addition has to be added to multiple places. Also see the lists of registered historic places. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current List of Nobel laureates table is organized poorly. I'd rather see it organized with columns for Year, Name, Category, etc., leaving space for other information like Affiliation. The current organization by Category is limiting and encourages all of these unnecessary spin-off articles when they are really not necessary. SnottyWong talk 19:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although, the currently existing List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation should suffice in the meantime. SnottyWong talk 19:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I've started a discussion on Talk:List of Nobel laureates about the table organization. SnottyWong talk 19:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a well-sourced article that is perfectly reasonable to break off from lists of laureates or lists of people associated with Princeton. Alansohn (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting and notable list.Biophys (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There already exists a List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation which contains this list (and would make a good redirect target). I don't see how this topic merits a separate article (by Wikipedia:Notability if you need a policy-based reason). How this list differs from "List of Nobel laureates who belong to X" (where X can be any university, country, or other plausibly relevant grouping) has not been answered. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is another interesting way to look at the data, but I find it visually cluttered compared to this one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I voted keep because this list includes additional information about each prize winner, as well as about the Princeton's laureats in general. This information can not be found in the more general List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation (please compare).Biophys (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you only get one vote biophys :) Also, I don't think the additional information warrants a whole article. And there are still unanswered questions about notability, no reliable source has Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton as a topic of discussion. Princeton, sure. Laureates, of course. The two together? OR in my opinion, cf. WP:LISTCRUFT. Sandman888 (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists and other almanac-like entries divided into useful sublists don't seem to follow the standard notability rules. They are just ways of making a big list easier to handle. I would like to see the other lists in this format, rather than see this one deleted. The main Nobel list can't be sorted because it is a matrix. List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation exists but according to Sandman888, should be deleted also because ~~there is no book or news article on this very topic.~~ there is "no reliable source that has Nobel laureates affiliated with [universities] as a topic of discussion." <--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, please don't put words in my mouth. I have not accused you of anything. I'd appreciate it if you cd keep it that way too. Sandman888 (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I paraphrased, and now substituted in your exact quote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a source for "list of ... affiliated with". Provided there are clear criteria for how "affiliated" is to be interpreted for the article overall (and ideally across similar academic bodies, per the relevant wikiproject) and that the entries in the list are sourced as meeting this, then it's OK and without relying on WP:SYNTHESIS either. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as comment above. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite and Richard Arthur Norton. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2010 (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.