Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian Nobel laureates (2nd nomination)

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. consensus appears clear after a strong debate. No active discussions of significance. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Russian Nobel laureates

[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)

No encyclopedic content whatsoever, and really seems like a category-masquerading-as-an-article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a simple directory-like listing. This list also appears to be obvious WP:OR: the specific selection criteria seem highly arbitrary and doesn't quite seem to match with either the natural English meaning of the word "Russian" (which is "from Russia", not "from the part of the Soviet Union which is now Russia" [the proper term, of course, being "Soviet", unless this is a list by ethnicity, which this doesn't seem to be], or "from some other part of the Soviet Union" or "spent a few years there at some point in their life"). This is already duplicated by the nationality branches of the category tree, so not even necessary for someone to bother spending the effort to categorify it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Russia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Russian Nobel laureates: "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." Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. For example, over the last thirty days the List of Russian Nobel laureates article received a daily average of 53 page views per day, while the category only received a daily average of 2 page views per day. Articles that would benefit from more sources for verification purposes can have maintenance templates requesting this work added to them. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 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. Maintenance templates can't fix this failing WP:NOT or address the fact that by it's very nature (given the ambiguity of "Russian") this list is going to keep encouraging OR and is thus a bad idea. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And since the previous keep argument is almost copy-pasted from elsewhere; so am I going to oblige similarly (quoting J947 from the last AFD nom for this page):

WP:NOTDUP says, as a conclusion: 'When deciding whether to create or avoid a list, the existence of a category on the same topic is irrelevant. This applies to both sides of the argument.

Categories are what are meant to be navigational aids, and WP:LISTPURP says that The list may be a valuable information source. The list is not a valuable information source as its content is already at List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Russia and Soviet Union with more information than this article has. This article consists of no prose. See WP:NOTSTATS—which as a policy surpasses MOS—especially point #3 which states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Also, page views are not a measure of notability.

Same as above; page views are not a measure of notability.

RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment – In pinging only one user from the last AfD discussion, rather than all users of the past discusion, you have now directly engaged in inappropriate WP:CANVASSING~~. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was not to ping them to the discussion, but was (very obviously, I can't figure how you missed this) for WP:COPYWITHIN reasons as I quoted their comment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~I strongly recommend that you now ping all users from the last AfD discussion. WP:COPYWITHIN does not trump Wikipedia:Canvassing.~~ North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright attribution is a legal requirement and does trump the rest. I'm not going to ping people whose comments are obviously personal opinion (" I feel this is a valid navigational approach." is WP:ILIKEIT) or provided no valid reasons at all ("for now. We can hash otu minimums at a VPP or a RFC"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Struck some of my commentary above.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTSTATS is concerning "excessive listings of unexplained statistics", but fact is, this article is not statistical in nature. It does not present averages of sample values, regression analysis, sample sizes, statistical assumptions, statistical inferences, probability distributions, margins of error, etc. The articles provides basic information, as many list articles typically do, but it is not statistical in nature. 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 13:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The inclusion criteria 'laureates who were citizens of Russia/Soviet Union at the time of receiving the award or in another time of their life are nonsensical, for multiple reasons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Keep, I now think this one has enough scope for a stand-alone list. J947 † ^edits 22:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was never the issue being disputed here. I still think the arbitrary criteria and the lack of further material about the intersection (as opposed to details about individual winners) disqualifies this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that the article has been expanded with many more references and citations. Also, the notes section has been expanded compared to the state it was in when nominated for deletion. If the article is retained, then I can likely devote more time to flesh it out more. For now, I'm awaiting the outcome of this discussion, but will still likely perform some work on it here and there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this nomination seems to be based on misconceptions about how lists work. It is absolutely fine to have a list and a category on the same topic, as specified explicitly by the relevant guideline, so the argument that seems like a category-masquerading-as-an-article is invalid. The nominator's argument that articles should provide encyclopedic prose and context is irrelevant because this is a list and not an article. While high quality lists usually have a paragraph or two at the start to set some context, the absence of such a thing is not a reason to delete the list and it usually duplicates the relevant article anyway. It is fine for list entries not to contain significant prose. I also don't agree that the topic is unencyclopedic, Nobel laureates are definitely an encyclopedic topic and nationality is an obvious way to categorise them.
While I agree that the list shouldn't include all citizens of the Soviet Union this is hardly a reason to delete the list. The list also doesn't contain people who spent a few years there at some point in their life, the entries who are not Russian or Soviet nationals clearly have strong connections to Russia, e.g. Andre Geim was born in Russia and seems to have lived there for the first 30 years or so of his life. Hut 8.5 16:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the WP:NOTDUP reference a convincing rebuttal for the reasons to delete. CT55555 (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep similar to bulk deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian Nobel laureates, the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian Nobel laureates, comments above, and passes WP:GNG, WP:LISTN, and WP:IMPACT. THe article is ver WP:DISCRIMINATE so the WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument in the nomination is quite misleading. And calling this WP:OR is something I just can't seem to understand.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A simple question'. Shouldn't a 'List of Russian Nobel laureates' be confined solely to people who were/are actually Russian? Because as of now,[1] the inclusion criteria are stated to be laureates of the Nobel Prize who were citizens of the Soviet Union or Russia at the time of receiving the award, or at another time during their life. Which, given that the Soviet Union always encompassed more than just Russia, would seem to potentially encompass people who weren't by any reasonable definition 'Russian'. While it may be common amongst the less-educated to conflate the Soviet Union with Russia, Wikipedia certainly shouldn't be perpetuating this misapprehension. If the list is to be kept, we need to come up with clear inclusion criteria which actually agree with the title. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably true, but that is an editing issue on the content, not a deletion issue of the entire article. --Paul McDonald (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but deletion discussions generally revolve around notability of the topic. Which requires some sort of clarity regarding what the actual subject of the article is. How the heck is anyone supposed to determine the notability (as demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject) of a topic where the title doesn't match the content? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - If an entry doesn't belong on the list, you can go ahead and edit it during the discussion. Any good-faith edit like that would be valuable to the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - 'Doesn't belong on the list' according to which criteria though? The title (which just says 'Russian'), or the nonsensical doesn't-actually-need-to-be-Russian criteria the article specifies? If there is a notable topic here, we need to be able to point to sources which discuss it. And give some sort of indication what 'it' is, rather than relying on Wikipedia contributors to decide for themselves how 'Russian' you need to be to merit inclusion in each case - which seems to be the case as of now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        That would be an editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Seems that an easy way to address this concern is to create a new article titled "List of Soviet Nobel laureates" and then sort accordingly. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this problem easier to navigate in the context of there being currently dozens of AfD proposals for List of <various nation> Nobel Laureates being debated and from what I've seen, close to unanimous agreement to keep every one of them in every discussion. So I don't see the Russian/Soviet/USSR one as an outlier which ever way it ends up being better defined. CT55555 (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Legally Russia is the successor state of the Soviet Union. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to reasonable decent article with decent references on notable subjects. I can't see any rationale for deleting it. scope_creep^Talk 10:29, 3 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.