Talk:Nobel disease: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:39, 24 September 2021

Articles for creation C‑class

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article was accepted from this draft on 26 December 2020 by reviewer Kvng (talk · contribs).

Paranormal C‑class Low‑importance

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology C‑class Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology C‑class Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability

Evidence from WP:BEFORE search: [1], [2], [3], [4] ~Kvng (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! You provided excellent examples of this term usage. Yes, these are valid sources, but they defeat the argument and the subject. Namely,

Source #1. It defines the meaning of the term as something very different from the meaning stated on the page. It claims that Nobel Prize winner were not capable of doing anything in science after receiving the prize. Not true, at least with regard to some of them.

Source #2. It makes a point (using only one non-scientific example) that certain Nobel prize winners did not deserve the prize. This is something different from the subject of the page.

Source #3. It defines the subject as "many people who have won a Nobel Prize went on to become infamous for saying and believing incredibly stupid things, some of which are quite delusional." incredibly stupid things, some of which are quite delusional. If so, the list on this must be reduced significantly.

Source #4. It say there is no such thing as "Nobel disease" or at least this must be called and interpreted differently.

Conclusion. The term/subject of this page has been used, but the meaning and validity of the term is not clear. This is more like a WP:COATRACK. My very best wishes (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline

@Chetsford: you've declined this as not notable. Did you look at the additional evidence I provided above?

You left a note indicating an WP:OR problem. Clearly there is room for improvement here. It deserves a decline only if there is a severe enough of a problem to cause it to be likely to be deleted at WP:AFD. ~Kvng (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they're different than what appears in the draft then, no, I did not. BEFORE is a process used in Articles for Deletion, not Articles for Creation. In fact, the AfC reviewing guide at WP:AFCR strongly implies that reviewers should base their decision on references contained in the submission only, to wit: "If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is inadequate verification and the submission should be declined for that reason." You are free to incorporate these references into the article and resubmit it. Chetsford (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly notable so I'm invoking WP:NORULES and have accepted this. ~Kvng (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Levitt

@Sir Syrup: Levitt is a relevant recent example of Nobel disease according to whom? To you. Therefore, WP:OR. I'm reverting again unless you find a WP:RS saying that Levitt is an example of nobelitis. VdSV9•♫ 11:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sort order of examples

The criterion for sorting the examples in this section is not clear, whether by date or alphabetically. Is there a preference? Blainster (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 ==Notability==
 Evidence from [[WP:BEFORE]] search: [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Science_and_Christianity/g67eEE-t5TIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Nobel+Disease%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA116&printsec=frontcover], [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/aung-san-suu-kyi-nobel-prize/540453/], [https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/12/18/paul-krugman-now-has-nobel-disease-10609], [https://mindmatters.ai/t/nobel-prize/] ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 17:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
+:Thank you! You provided excellent examples of this term usage. Yes, these are valid sources, but they defeat the argument and the subject. Namely,
+::Source #1. It defines the meaning of the term as something very different from the meaning stated on the page. It claims that Nobel Prize winner were not capable of doing anything in science after receiving the prize. Not true, at least with regard to some of them.
+::Source #2. It makes a point (using only one non-scientific example) that certain Nobel prize winners did not deserve the prize. This is something different from the subject of the page.
+::Source #3. It defines the subject as "many people who have won a Nobel Prize went on to become infamous for saying and believing incredibly stupid things, some of which are quite delusional." <u>incredibly stupid things, some of which are quite delusional.</u> If so, the list on this must be reduced significantly.
+::Source #4. It say there is no such thing as "Nobel disease" or at least this must be called and interpreted differently.
+:::Conclusion. The term/subject of this page has been used, but the meaning and validity of the term is not clear. This is more like a [[WP:COATRACK]]. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 15:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 == Decline ==