Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates

List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates

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

The Nobel Prize committee explicitly states its prize is awarded without consideration to ethnicity, religion, or even nationality. Ethnicity, by itself, is not notable and the policy on lists states that a good way of judging whether something is listcruft is by seeing if an article can be written about its contents. List of Freemasons exists because of Freemasonry... but List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates doesn't have a The Chinese & The Nobel Prize article to substantiate it. This is a case of Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory and Wikipedia:OCAT#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_orientation (AKA: WP:OLIST) Bulldog123 22:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this list serves no valid purpose. Yworo (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, violates BLPCAT, NPOV, and WP:EGRS. Ethnicity only important when directly related to article subject's activities. No valid purpose, only use is for vanity and bragging.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To quote from WP:OC#CATGRS "...people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently to a Lutheran or Methodist". If anyone wants to suggest that a list isn't compiled by ethnic categorisation, then I'd like to ask how else they would define the method used? It seems to me that any such method could only be either (a) meaningless, or (b) a blatant attempt to bypass Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a list, not a category, so WP:OC does not apply. WP:BLPCAT does not apply to lists based on ethnicity, only those based on religious belief and sexual orientation, or which suggest a poor reputation. Being Chinese is none of these. Nationality- and ethnicity-based lists are specifically exempted from relevance requirements at WP:LISTPEOPLE. --Avenue (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment A list is compiled through categorisation, and if one follows through the various policy statements the logic is quite clear: WP:LISTPEOPLE states that Lists of people must follow Wikipedia's policy on biographical information about living people". WP:BLP states that it applies for "categories, lists and navigation templates", WP:COP states in turn that WP:EGRS applies regarding "categorization by ethnicity" - "Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity..." Being ethnically Chinese is not relevant to winning a Nobel Prize. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - There are important differences between lists and categories. Perhaps the most relevant is that lists can include much more explanatory content than mere category membership. So I think a position based on the arguable claim that "lists are built through categorisation" misses the point. Anyway, as I pointed out above, the first guideline you mention (WP:LISTPEOPLE) specifically exempts ethnicity-based lists of people from those relevance requirements. So either there is a flaw in your long chain of logic, or our guidelines and policies must contradict each other (or both).
  - (Just to be clear, here is the passage from WP:LISTPEOPLE I mean: "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example, lists of atheists doesn't include every individual with a Wikipedia article who happens to be an atheist, because not all of them are notable for their atheism. However, it might well include Sigmund Freud. [...] An exception is nationality/ethnicity. List of Albanians includes persons who are famous in any category and who belong to Albania.") --Avenue (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Avenue, I think you misunderstand what WP:LISTPEOPLE says. A List of Albanians is ok because the criteria are 'Albanian' and 'Notable': the list can include all 'notable Albanians': no Albanian can be excluded for any reason other than non-notability, which is the normal Wikipedia standard for rejecting anything. That is really all it says on the subject. A 'List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates' on the other hand is (taking as read that winning a Nobel Prize is notable) a synthesis - the intersection of ethnic Chinese and Nobel laureates: there is nothing notable about the intersection (or if there is, strong WP:RS will be needed to show this notability, e.g. that it is discussed in a meaningful manner in appropriate texts as an intersection with an explanation for why this intersection is itself notable). AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - What Andy says is pretty much on the money. Bulldog123 19:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If our prohibition against novel synthesis is the crux of your argument, do you agree that all it takes to refute it is the discovery of reliable sources substantively linking the Chinese and the Nobel prize? That honestly doesn't seem too hard. For instance, there's an entire book titled The politics of cultural capital: China's quest for a Nobel Prize in literature. There are many other reliable sources addressing Chinese concerns over Chinese laureates—sometimes the lack of such, and sometimes their feeling that inappropriate ones have been chosen (e.g. the 14th Dalai Lama, Gao Xingjian, and Liu Xiaobo). There's certainly enough out there to support an article on the topic (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). It doesn't matter for this AfD that it hasn't been written yet. --Avenue (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You can search the "Chinese" and "[anything]" and find something relating the two. The point is that it needs to be well-established (per WP:FRINGE) and encyclopedic. Not every news article ever published is worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. That's why they are news articles and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Also, everything you cited is fine to mention somewhere (e.g., an article on Chinese governmental repression) but none of it is enough for an entirely separate article. Bulldog123 21:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You can't find entire books on any intersection with "Chinese". Anyway, only the last of those links is to a newspaper. Another is to a journal article (and here's another one); the rest are books. --Avenue (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ethnic Chinese is not a notable criteria with regards to Nobel prizes. "Of Asian descent" or Asian Laureates (as opposed to Caucasian ones) would be fine. Nergaal (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please explain the distinction, i.e. why one is okay and the other is not? I can't see it, sorry. --Avenue (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have an article on black laureates, mainly because they are rare. Having a similar list on the laureates of East Asian descent would be fine since I believe they are also disproportionately few compared to the Caucasian laureates. Also, having a list on Chinese laureates when US, UK, and Germany each have over 100 laureates but have no separate list yet does not seem normal to me (also, wp:CFORK). Nergaal (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~I'd say that an article on black laureates may well possibly be merited, but that following from the discussion above, a list wouldn't be.~~ See WP:OC#CATGRS for more on this, and note in particular the suggestion that if reasonable grounds for an article on the subject cannot be found, a list cannot be created. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - An article on this topic seems perfectly feasible; see my response in the thread above. --Avenue (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think an article on this or black laureates is feasible. Honestly, give me one thing we could say? Bulldog123 20:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thinking about it, an article on black laureates would be highly problematical, given the widely-differing usage of the term in an international context. Perhaps what is really needed is a single article discussing the relationship between ethnicity and the award of Nobel laureates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I think ethnicity is probably intertangled with nationalism here. Something like Ethnicity, nationalism and the Nobel Prize could be broad enough to provide plenty of reliably sourced material (e.g. [6]) while avoiding demarcation issues. By the way, we also have a List of Japanese Nobel laureates and Nobel laureates of India. --Avenue (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 07:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 07:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and any of these kinds of lists, be they religion, ethnicity, age, or whatnot. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and the rest. Ethnicity needs to be added to BLP and this is being discussed. Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That might become a valid argument if and when ethnicity is added to BLPCAT, but it isn't yet. It also relies on there being no sources substantively discussing individual laureates Chinese ethnicity. I have already found some for the more controversial selections; see above. --Avenue (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pending a rationale for deletion. Note, any category-relate guideline cannot be a basis for deletion. This is not a category.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:EGRS is a guideline for "categorization" not Wiki-Categories. The definition for "categorization" can be found at Wiktionary. When you put person A in List of X, you categorize that person as X. Barack Obama in the List of US Presidents is categorized as a US President.--Therexbanner (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently you missed the giant swath of the nomination rationale that talks about policy for lists. Bulldog123 22:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or perhaps he didn't think that was worth mentioning, since it has already been rebutted above. And that reading of WP:EGRS seems like a big stretch, since that guideline does not prescribe how lists should be handled at all. --Avenue (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course, the "Keep it because it does no harm" approach. Bulldog123 05:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Avenue.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This and all other "ethnic" lists of this kind. WP:BLPCAT does in fact explicitly pertain to lits as well as categories. The addition of "ethnic" to BLPCAT is currently being discussed. That said, this list is inherently un-encyclopedic trivia. If the list were based on nationality, as in legal citizenship in a nation-state, instead of "ethnicity" it would be less problematic.Griswaldo (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per established precedent for such lists of notable individuals, as clarified in WP:SAL, WP:LSC, WP:LISTNAME, WP:SALAT, and WP:LISTPEOPLE, this list is specifically per applicable policies and guidelines and serves the project and its readers. Had the list been a collection of redlinks, I would have opined differently. Note I had not heard of this particular AFD until brought to my attention by User:Bulldog123. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Avenue, and the list is informative. Davshul (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and all other ethnic lists of this nature. I don't see the difference between nationality and ethnicity in lists of this kind--they are both relevant considerations and equally encyclopedic--and both are sometimes disputed. My own preference is to not try to separate them, and to view "Chinese" as meaning any of ancestry, ethnicity or nationality. Trying to be too precise about these things leads to disputes. If we're going to reopen the question ofBLPCAt, I think the consensus might be to eliminate the restrictions altogether. the principle of BLP is do no harm, and it is enough if we do not list living people under ethnicities or religions or sexualities that they explicitly do not want to be listed in. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would add that this article appears only to have been nominated for deletion in order to support the augument for the deletion of the List of Jewish Nobel laureates. JackJud (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]