Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swedish 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   redirect to List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country. Plenty of valid reasons for maintaining such a list have been presented, but the content is a duplicate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  16:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

List of Swedish Nobel laureates

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No need for such per WP:LISTCRUFT.  Greenbörg  (talk)  19:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  Delete Redirect to List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country per WP:ATD-R – Already sufficiently covered there.  J 947(c) (m) 19:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep:
 * Per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Swedish Nobel laureates.
 * Per WP:LISTPURP, functions as a useful navigational aid, as evidenced in part per the 904 page views the page has received in the last thirty days.
 * Conversely, the category page has only received 144 page views in the last thirty days.
 * Lastly, the listcruft essay is just that, an opinion essay, not a notability guideline.
 * – North America1000 04:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am going to address your points:
 * 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.
 * 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 with more information than this article has. This article consists of no prose. 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.
 * Same as above; page views are not a measure of notability.
 * 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'.  J 947 ( c ) (m)   07:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country per J947. I believe that if this article had been caught when newly created it could have been deleted per WP:A10. Yes, list articles can duplicate categories but articles shouldn't duplicate sections in other articles. Sjö (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I feel this is a valid navigational approach. Carrite (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not about what we feel, it is about wikipedia policy on inclusion like WP:LISTPURP.


 * Redirect to - List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country. This list is a duplication of what is already covered in List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country. Last I checked page views are not a measure of what needs to be kept or deleted. Since there was a recent awards of Nobel awards in Economics then it is plausible people came to search for anything to do with Nobel prizes and that might be what led to the spike in views. Kagundu  Talk To Me  06:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CLT; no need to delete or redirect. ansh 666 18:15, 13 October 2017 (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.