Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1966


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1966

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A list of indiscriminate, non-notable information, pure listcruft JMHamo (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Fellows of the Royal Society are automatically notable - it's the most significant honour awarded by Britain's most important and significant scientific society. Fellowship is generally only conferred to those who will meet our existing notability criteria, as they only award fellowships to those with a significant body of nationally and internationally important work, so multiple peer reviewed publications in major journals, Nature and the like. I believe all British Nobel prize winners were either existing fellows, or awarded a fellowship after winning. I'd note that List_of_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society already exists and deletion will have to determine not the notability issue, but whether we wish to present the fellowships on a year by year basis. Nick (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles such as List of Fellows of the Royal Society A,B,C exist already, where you can sort by year. I guess the question is should winners listed by year have their own article, like List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1965, List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1964, List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1963, List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1962 and so on... JMHamo (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me   What did he do now?  04:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me   What did he do now?  04:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Neither indiscriminate nor non-notable. There is no other single article on Wikipedia which provides the same information, and the topic is indisputably notable. Pburka (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, FRSs are notable, but we already list them. This is the only one by year. If this is kept, we could have another 350 created. No, this is just list-cruft. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  05:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTPAPER  D r e a m Focus  08:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The other lists only shows part of the list by alphabetical order.  You can search by year, but only for those whose names begin wit A-C, and so on.  List could be made perhaps to combine information from the year articles, so people could sort by year.  I see nothing wrong with just having an article for each year, there enough valid information to put in it, and perhaps a dynamic list be made which gave you not just their name, but also a brief mention of why they are notable.  That'd be useful.   D r e a m Focus  08:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  08:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am working through these, but they'll take a few months to sort out. This is infinitely better than the existing list because the existing lists at List_of_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society_A,B,C requires extensive curation and are out of date already.  Every year it requires someone to take the names of the latest fellows, and insert them alphabetically in the new list.  This hasn't happened for 2012 or 2013.  Furthermore, there are details of birth/death that are included as well.  By this method every sublist is WP:COMPLETE and will not need updating in the future, and the next list for 2014 is easily made when it's covered by news sources.  We also need this list to go through and complete biographical stubs for all of the remaining fellows. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You should use your sandbox, while you're working on articles. This still looks like pure listcruft to me, no prose, references or categories in many of the articles, e.g. List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1963 JMHamo (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 17 of those links are blue. It is thus a valid list article.   D r e a m Focus  15:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it valid when it's unreferenced, as many of them are? JMHamo (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So just add a link to their official list, and its fine. And the blue linked names have that information in those articles already.   D r e a m Focus  17:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. In addition to nominating the page for deletion, User:JMHamo added a prose tag to it, suggesting that it could better be presented as prose. This suggestion makes no sense to me, as the article is a list (it says so in the title!). Can the nominator explain how he or she imagines the article could be improved by replacing the list with prose? Pburka (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair point, my bad, I have removed the tag. JMHamo (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The creator makes a fair point. There is value in having lists of fellows alphabetically, but the Royal Society is exceptional in being established in 1660 and having had a great many fellows in consequence. The fellows are notable regardless of whether they currently have an article. Some sort of chronological ordering is desirable. Whether it should be by having a single article for each year or, say, by decade is an editorial matter and not for AfD. Deleting this article would deny a solution. Being a work in progress is not a bar. --AJHingston (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per AJHingston. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - the keep votes and explanations are more persuasive to me than the nom. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Solomon7968 18:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. FRSs are notable and list by year is instructive. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep - WP:Listcruft is about indiscriminate and trivial. I think a valid argument has been made against trivial due to the notability of the subject and I find the list far from indiscriminate as to make it on the list you must have been not only a Fellow of the Royal Society but also elected in a specific year. It's clearly a certifiable group. Mkdw talk 06:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.