Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Danish 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. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Danish Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No need for such per WP:LISTCRUFT. We are not bound to improve such stuff. Greenbörg (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination statement just seems to consist of hurling abuse and then stating the obvious - nobody is bound to do anything on Wikipedia. Could we please have a more policy-compliant reason for deletion for this and the other similar articles nominated? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redirect to List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Denmark per WP:ATD-R – No Wikipedia articles about 'Danish Nobel laureates' or such; thus easily fails list notability criteria. J947^{(c) (m)} 19:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? It only took me a few seconds to find this book published by a university press. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It says it was the only one of a kind when it was made, and where's the second source that GNG requires? J947^{(c) (m)} 20:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't be ridiculous. If a whole book is published by a university press about a subject then that is much better than the two random web sites that you seem to want. Have you actually put any thought into the question of whether this topic belongs in an encyclopedia rather than silly Wikilawyering about the number of sources? Please use some common sense. As I said before, I found that source within a few seconds of seeing your first comment above. I'm sure if you spent a few minutes looking further you would find many more sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• GNG requires multiple sources. It says that quite clearly. Also, the book is case of notability for Danish Nobel laureates, not the list. Plus, even if that article existed, I would !vote for a merge into that article, as this list is quite short and could easily fit into a bigger article. J947^{(c) (m)} 22:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:

• Per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Danish Nobel laureates.
• Per WP:LISTPURP, functions as a useful navigational aid, as evidenced in part per the 420 page views the page has received in the last thirty days.
• Conversely, the category page has only received 40 page views in the last thirty days.
• Lastly, the listcruft essay is just that, an opinion essay, not a notability guideline.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Northamerica1000: I am going to address your points:

1. 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.
2. 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#Denmark. 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.
3. Same as above; page views are not a measure of notability.
4. This point is fair, but per my statements above I will not be swinging towards keep based on your !vote.

BTW, I have changed my !vote to 'redirect'. J947^{( c ) (m)} 07:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Denmark, not because this list fails to meet any policy or guidelines (it does not), but as a simple editing decision to avoid unnecessary duplication. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Denmark. There's nothing in the article under discussion that's not already included in the suggested target section. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I feel this is a valid navigational approach. Carrite (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CLT; no need to delete or redirect. ansh666 18:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Polish_Nobel_laureates was relisted, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Swedish_Nobel_laureates redirected, Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/List_of_Portuguese_Nobel_laureates redirected, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List of Liberian Nobel laureates redirected, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Argentine Nobel laureates kept. J947^{( c ) (m)} 18:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with the two editors above - in the context of navigation, and as per WP:CLTDeathlibrarian (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Can make a minimum number at some other place. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:42, 22 October 2017 (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.