Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates in Literature by age


 * 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   delete. T. Canens (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Nobel laureates in Literature by age

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This is one of the most bizarre things I've come across on Wikipedia. The entire list is canonical WP:OR, but more to the point what on earth is encyclopaedic about counting down the days to the death of living Nobel laureates, or counting the days between award and decease? This really is an indiscriminate collection of information. Maybe it's part of the agecruft walled garden, I don't know. Guy (Help!) 14:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge or Delete. I agree that the list, in its entirety, is unnecessary information. However, I don't think that- assuming they could be verified- there would be anything wrong with listing how old each recipient was when they won in the main article- I think there's a wholly encyclopedic use to knowing how old the winners were upon receiving the prize. With that said, it would create a rather large change to the main List of Nobel laureates in Literature article, so I wouldn't necessarily oppose outright deletion. -- Mike (Kicking222) 16:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge per Kicking222. I think bits of this could exist elsewhere, for example in the main article List of Nobel laureates in Literature.  It should be noted that I was alerted to this by a member of the public who found it rather morbid and strange, which I think it is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The list might be more relevant if the Nobel laureates were listed by age based on when they received the prize, starting with the oldest and descending to the youngest. Or vice versa. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WTF. I mean, delete per WP:IINFO. Whether or not to add an "age upon award" column to the main list is an editorial question to be decided on that article's talk page.  Sandstein   20:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep until merged. Doing math is not OR. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see how this can be seen as anything more than useless trivia, an indiscriminate collection of information. Peacock (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic cross-categorization. Roscelese (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not random miscellaneous info. Rather, it's taking three known non-random critically important data points: birthdate, date of award,and date of death--none of them information which would conceivably be omitted from an article about the person, and all reasonable even for a summary list, and doing some simple arithmetic. WP:OR makes specific provisions for permitting this sort of arithmetic; the entire list is explicitly what is NOT "canonical OR". There is actually no additional information added, trivial or otherwise ; the entire information is those three dates for each person, from which everything else is derived.  Expressing time intervals in days is routine--it's a better choice than expressing it in minutes or decimal years. I might have chosen years + days after the whole years, but anyone can do the conversion, or a column can be added.    I agree the article looks a little weird and complicated, but then Wikipedia in general looks a little weird and complicated.   DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 5 December 2010 (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.