Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation


 * 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. The issue in this AfD is whether this list's selection criteria (listing all alumni, long-term academic staff, and short-term academic staff of the listed universities who went on to win the Turing Award) are original research or not. Unlike in the corresponding Nobel AfD, this discussion is much more focused on that issue, allowing us to assess consensus more easily. The "delete" side not only has about a 2:1 advantage in numbers, but in my view also the stronger arguments. To overcome the SYNTH issue, the "keep" side would have to point to reliable sources that use the same selection criteria to establish an "affiliation" of award winners to universities, and I'm not seeing such sources being cited here - at least no such sources that convince most AfD participants.  Sandstein  14:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Inspired by the discussions at Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Fields_Medal_winners_by_university_affiliation and Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation.

To summarize the arguments for delete:
 * The criteria for what university affiliations "count" are arbitrary and unsourced, and any decisions we make about them are original research.
 * The ranking of universities is exactly the kind of combining of information that WP:SYNTH is asking us to avoid. Danstronger (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Danstronger (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Danstronger (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Exactly the same problem as the other lists of the same type. The individual items may have citations, but the choice of what counts as "affiliation" and what doesn't is a layer of original research on top of that. This could be acceptable in an academic paper about the Turing Award, but not here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-WP:LISTN WP:SYNTH chest-thumping exercise. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For gender balance we should also acknowledge the breast-beating element. EEng 16:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The following paragraphs are essentially copy-pastes between all three of the articles, with the only change being the relevant award name:


 * This is obvious original research be editors making up their own criteria for this article and similar ones. And since it is a copy-paste, I'm also going to allow myself to copy my own rationale from other discussions, which applies here just as much as it does elsewhere: Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not a database; an indiscriminate collection of unrelated trivia; or a directory based on unrelated characteristics - something which this article very obviously is, as the overly broad concept of "academic affiliation" clearly does not have a significant link with "being awarded a medal". Additionally, this is clearly OR, not because there are no sources, but because these sources are used in a novel, synthetic manner, and as such the whole of the content of the list, from the ground up, is original research; and because it is based on subjective criteria (which by definition cannot be "routine calculations", which are objective). Something that is first published on Wikipedia, and has no precedent in other sources [not even listed on the site of the award itself], and is indeed only based on the synthesis of sources which say, separately, "X attended [institution]" and, often at an entirely unrelated time, "X won [award]", and blatantly explains itself as being OR in the lead; is obviously OR, and something built on such a shaky foundation should be deleted. Even if, by some miracle, there are enough appropriate sources to write a proper article, then WP:TNT applies, because it would require rewriting this entirely RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The phrase "original research" is used on this website to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. On List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation, at least one reliable source is there for every entry. The only "criteria" used on this list is the universally accepted definitions of "academic affiliation". Academic affiliation with a university is a universally defined term in academia: students, long-term academic staff, and short-term academic staff or visitors. The definition is elementary. It is like an axiom. RandomCanadian is basically having the same confusion that TompaDompa has. On Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, there is a long discussion between TompaDompa, and Minimumbias and me. Please study that discussion carefully. User:Danstronger: The ranking of universities is exactly the kind of combining of information that WP:SYNTH is asking us to avoid. Guess what? I fixed that problem with ONE EDIT. This comment by Tiredmeliorist is applicable to this discussion. Ber31 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Removing the summarized form of the problem doesn't really remove the problem. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But the WP:SYNTH raised by User:Danstronger is resolved. Maybe other issues can also be fixed... Ber31 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is resolved. The page still ranks universities. It just doesn't give a summary of the ranking before the ranking. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not having the ranking summary table gives a message: We are not trying to rank universities. Ber31 (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To be more precise, I feel there were three levels of SYNTH going on. The first is to say Stanford has 29 Turing Award affiliates.  The second is to say Stanford has more than MIT.  The third is to say Stanford's rank by this metric is that they are first.  The first level is the most important one, because it implies number of affiliates who won the award, counted in this way, is the important thing.  Ber31's edit makes the third level of synth implicit instead of explicit, but it is still clearly there.  To get rid of all the synth would require at least getting rid of the headline counts and putting the schools in alphabetical order.  At which point, I suppose the relevant guideline would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  I don't believe this article can be salvaged. Danstronger (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Danstronger: You made a great argument! We can avoid WP:SYNTH by putting the schools in alphabetical order. Headline counts should not be a problem because routine calculations do not count as WP:OR or WP:SYNT. After that, this list won't be "excessive listings of unexplained statistics." The purpose of this list is clear: we plainly state the alma mater and the working places of the Turing award laureates, without counting them using a particular set of criteria and without ranking universities in a particular order. Ber31 (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * By avoiding university ranking and putting them in the alphabetical order, we can make sure that this list will avoid "chest-thumping exercise", and thus refuting the "delete vote" of User:David Eppstein. His claim of WP:SYNT has also been completely refuted by my arguments. Ber31 (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think alphabetizing the list is an improvement. But there's yet another, zeroth level of synth that I forgot to mention. It's the combination of "Leslie Valiant was a lecturer at University of Leeds" and "Leslie Valiant won a Turing award" into "Someone affiliated with the University of Leeds won a Turing award." Now, this may seem obvious to you, but it's not the technical truth of the statement that's important, it's the implication.  The implication, in this case, is that Valiant's Turing Award should be associated, or assigned, to the University of Leeds in some way, and, if we read between the lines just a tiny bit, that the university should be attributed some prestige from this association. These synthesized implications are the reason people care about this page, they're the reason WP:ITSINTERESTING, but they are not supported by any reliable secondary source. There is no way to list Turing Award laureates by university affiliation without implicitly assigning Turing Awards to universities.  That's why the page is unsalvageable. Danstronger (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Danstronger: Thank you! Danstronger:The implication, in this case, is that Valiant's Turing Award should be associated, or assigned, to the University of Leeds in some way, and, if we read between the lines just a tiny bit, that the university should be attributed some prestige from this association. That is you personal interpretation. I could interpret it differently: it just happened that Valiant taught at Leeds University. Since it was a random event, Leeds University shouldn't be attributed some prestige from this association. Ber31 (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Drawing a line from the Turing award, through Valiant, to Leeds is beyond absurd. I'd be willing to bet Valiant doesn't even remember being a lecturer at Leeds -- fifty years ago! EEng 20:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As per this reliable source (published by Harvard), Valiant was a Lecturer at Centre for Computer Studies, Leeds University (1974-76). This list is guided by reliable sources, not by any types of subjective interpretations. Ber31 (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, DUH, no one's questioning the fact that he lectured at Leeds. You entirely miss the point, which is that his lectureship at Leeds 50 years ago was a brief and unimportant moment in his career utterly unrelated to his Turing award, and it is (I repeat) beyond absurd to somehow draw a line between them. You might as well list his secondary school as having an "affiliate" with a Turning Award.You have a longstanding habit of pontificating on how academia works (see Talk:Harvard_University/Archive_11) when, to be blunt, it's becoming more and more clear that you have nothing more than a layman's understanding of it. EEng 16:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:EEng: I haven't missed your point, I just want to say that we cannot use your subjective interpretations. The list has to be guided by reliable sources. Yes, his lectureship at Leeds 50 years ago was a brief and unimportant moment in his career, but no-one can deny that he was academically affiliated to Leeds University. List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation shouldn't list secondary schools. In that discussion (Talk:Harvard_University/Archive_11), User:Attic Salt's points were the game changer. After Attic Salt's argument, this is what I concluded: Thank you, User:Attic Salt for your insightful and respectful comment. You have made a powerful point: the notion of what qualifies as an AM has changed over time. The AMs received by John Adams and John Quincy Adams will only count as awards or honors today. However, back in those days, those AMs would count as regular AMs. I wasn't wrong when I pointed out that the AMs that were awarded to John Adams and John Quincy Adams were completely different from the AM earned by the likes of Brian Schmidt, but I accepted the powerful point of Attic Salt, namely the notion of what qualifies as an AM has changed over time at Harvard. By the way, I have more than a layman's understanding of how academia works. Ber31 (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You even miss the point that you miss the point, and your needing someone to point out that the notion of what qualifies as an AM has changed over time confirms my estimate of your expertise. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 17:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words, User:EEng. Let me put it in this way: I can afford to miss the point, but I have to save this list! By the way, I am not an expert on Harvard's AMs. Ber31 (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:EEng: I wasn't wrong when I pointed out that those AMs were not earned through academic labor. During those days, those AMs were something of a rite of passage. I also fixed the mistake, John Quincy Adams was awarded an AM by Harvard in 1790–not in 1798. Ber31 (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Academic labor", like "academic affiliation", is just one more of your incomprehensible talismanic incantations. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 20:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have decided to elaborate my arguments below. See: Ber31 (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The affiliations are neither arbitrary nor unsourced and so are not original. The presentation is not synthesis because juxtaposition is not synthesis.  Having disposed of the nomination's false assertions, it merely remains to confirm the topic's notability.  See Turing award scientists: contribution and recognition in computer science or Social conditions of outstanding contributions to computer science : a prosopography of Turing Award laureates for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the non-arbitrary, source-based explanation for the following sentences in the article? for award-based visiting positions, to minimize controversy this list takes a conservative view and includes the positions as affiliations only if the awardees were required to assume employment-level duty (teaching/research) or the awardees specifically classified the visiting positions as "appointment" or similar in reliable sources such as their curriculum vitae. In particular, attending meetings and giving public lectures, talks or non-curricular seminars are employment-level duties. --JBL (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, let's look at the sources. The first one you give, a PhD thesis; has the following on p. 126: "Table 5.2. Universities Attended for the Last Degree Received by Turing Award Winners (1966-2008), N=55". The numbers are given in percentages (a shoddy way to give the data here, but nvm); but if I do some actual "routine calculations", from the last column, this converts to: 7 for Harvard, 6 each for Princeton and Berkeley, 5 for Stanford, ... Not only are these a far cry from the numbers given in the list as it stands, they don't even match with even just the "Alumni" column of the article (even once one discounts those entries after the given date): and of course, this brings into question whether the article's methodology is really "universally accepted" if other sources use different methods. Clearly, not just the content (which is a load of SYNTH), but the whole concept and methodology of the article are entirely original constructions, which cannot be found anywhere but on Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and something that has not been published anywhere else before is obviously original thought, then this is clearly not material fit for Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not arbitrary; it's just commonsense of the sort that we use all the time when we use words in natural languages such as English. My standard example of this issue is rivers.  Our article river tells us that There are no official definitions for the generic term river but yet we have numerous lists of rivers.  And these are not just lists of names, they also include stats such as length which are naturally quite variable or debatable because the rivers are not constant and their length is fractal in nature.  So, even though there are complications and corner-cases, we maintain such lists because they are expected of an encyclopedia.  This is not original research; it's just the clarification and defnition of terms required when compiling information about the real world as it's not tidy and mathematically precise. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If this kind of arbitrary decision-making were done on the subject of rivers, it'd be just as bad as it is here. We can report what other sources say about the lengths of rivers and how variable those figures might be; we can convert miles into kilometers. We can't invent a new definition, call it "obvious" or "universal" or "common sense" and apply it in the face of what our own sources say. pointed out that the first source (the PhD thesis) disagrees with the enumeration here; so does the second, as it gives 6 post-graduate degrees to Harvard while this list gives 7, and it gives 6 to Princeton instead of 7, etc. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But the key point is that the editorial decisions which have been made in presenting the current version are not fundamental; they are just operational and provisional, as with any of our content. Consider the first version of the list which was naturally much simpler and straightforward.  Now, I'm not sure exactly how that differed from the current version; the devil is in the details.  The point is that if there's some issue with the choices which have been made then the reasonable way forward is to hash this out on the talk page, holding RfCs as necessary, to get to a better state.  Deleting the 10 year history along with the talk page and archives is just wanton destruction contrary to policies such as WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE.  My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CANTFIX is part of WP:PRESERVE. Even the first version has the problem that it's ranking universities, and by a metric whose significance is far from established. (A non-peer-reviewed preprint is not a reliable source, and a thesis is not much better, since we can't trust it to have been vetted by anyone outside the author's own institution. So, the idea that this is an encyclopedically suitable cross-categorization is very much in doubt.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Andrew Davidson, just to be sure that I understand your position correctly: you argue (for example) that the question of whether Maxim Kontsevich is affiliated with the University of Miami for purposes of List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation is essentially similar to the question of whether the Roeliff Jansen Kill is a river for the purposes of List of rivers of New York? --JBL (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with either of these examples but, according to our articles, Kontsevich is "a distinguished professor at the University of Miami" while the kill is a "tributary of the Hudson". I notice that Kontsevich is in the List of University of Miami faculty but not the Category:University of Miami faculty. Is this a deliberate mistake or what? Andrew🐉(talk) 21:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Kontsevich is listed with five different affiliations at List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation, but Miami is not among them; I suppose one could ask Minimumbias to explain exactly why. But I'm not asking a gotcha question, I just chose a couple of examples I'm familiar with as illustrations because I would like to make sure that I understand your analogy before I decide whether to say anything further about it. --JBL (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe everyone who has commented at the Nobel Prize or Fields Medal pages could just say "per my comments here [link]" and then we can avoid the absurdity of having a third discussion full of identical rationales? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayBeeEll (talk • contribs)
 * We could each have a template or something. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 04:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Or one big template for the whole discussion. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 13:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep For the same reasons I have repeatedly explained in, here and here . Minimumbias (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Effectively rebutted (by refuting the central point, that these are "universally accepted criteria") here. And also in the previous analysis of Andrew's "sources" here, which, whether they are reliable or not, don't match with the article content... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Students, faculty and short-term staff are universally defined concepts. Education and employment are the basic affiliations. These are like common sense. You "rebutted" my claims as if I am giving out false information. Go to any department's website with proper directory presented, you can see this grouping of people . Everyone knows university has professors, but not many sources will explicitly state this common sense. In addition, sources like Cambridge's count  lists the laureates like ours (121 laureates) and MIT's count  lists the laureates like ours (98 laureates). Claiming we cannot find any source to support our lists is plainly false. Wikipedia policies cannot be used to override common sense. There is no pride in carrying out such abuse. Wikipedia is not some fantasy world, but some people living in it seem to be using NOR as if they are policemen. Minimumbias (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Students, faculty and short-term staff are universally defined concepts – If you really believe that then we're moving into WP:CIR territory. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:EEng: How would you define "academic affiliation"? Ber31 (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't try to do what you keep trying to do. That's the point. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 16:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:EEng: Academic affiliation with a university is a universally defined term in academia: students, long-term academic staff, and short-term academic staff or visitors. It is like an axiom. This is so elementary. University of Cambridge's definition of academic affiliation and our definition of academic affiliation are equivalent. As per Cambridge page:Our list includes: alumni; academics who carried out research at the University in postdoctoral or faculty positions; and official appointments (visiting fellowships, lectureships, etc). We have not included informal positions, non-academic positions and honorary positions. On List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation or List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation, academic affiliates include alumni, long-term academic staff, and short-term academic staff. Both the Nobel count of Cambridge University and List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation include alumni. Long-term academic staff include academics who carried out research at the university in faculty position. Short-term academic staff or visitors include postdocs, visiting fellows, lecturers, etc. This means that the same definition of academic affiliation and criteria are used by both Cambridge list of Nobel affiliates, and List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation or List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation! If a student were to attend calculus classes, the student will not be learning basic arithmetic such as 4+9=13. Few editors commenting on AFDs seem to be aware of the basic definition of academic affiliation. It should be almost taken for granted that editors who participate on these types of AFDs should be aware of the meaning of academic affiliation. Editors who are unaware of this definition or show confusion should be questioned for their eligibility to participate in these types of AFDs. It is easy to delete pages, but very difficult to create and maintain pages. I am tired of repeating the same thing over and over again, but few editors paid attention to what I said. Ber31 (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I give up. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 16:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, if this is universally accepted, how can you explain the differences in listing between different websites; how the papers given by Andrew do not use this; how many other sources do not use this, ...? Whether some universities happen to list their laureates by what look like superficially similar criteria can't justify all the others who don't. Again, go explain to me how this is universally accepted if on examples like the Nobel list, Harvard was given over 150 while it only officially claimed 51. Nor is the criteria so uncontroversial that Wikipedians are allowed to take a stance on it. Some (like the first of the papers shown by Andrew) only take into account the last received degree, wherever that may be. A universally accepted criteria should be universally followed: this clearly is not, because you can find a variety of sources which use different criteria. You can't just ignore those that have different criteria than you and justify it with "oh but its universally accepted": that's not only trivially wrong, but also obvious selection bias. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat the same thing that I have said below. MIT counts the long-term academic staff who won the Turing award. Here is the list: (Turing award is included). That MIT list doesn't include Whitfield Diffie, an MIT graduate and Turing award winner. However, MIT accepts that Diffie is an MIT graduate. Here is an article:Turing Award Goes to Cryptography Pioneer ’65. This list includes students, long-term academic staff, and short-term academic staff or visitors. Universities use the same definition of academic affiliation as we do, but they use different criteria while counting Turing affiliates in their official lists. Got it? Universities can create own their lists using their own subjective criteria, but such things cannot be done on Wikipeida. Such subjective criteria cannot be applied to Wikipedia lists because of No original research and Neutral point of view. Editors of Wikipedia cannot control the behavior of other universities. List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation must not use subjective criteria. The only "criteria" that can be used on the list is almost the universally accepted definition of "academic affiliation". Editors have to stay neutral and avoid subjective interpretations. This list is the best that editors can create and maintain on Wikipedia. Ber31 (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * RC:Whether some universities happen to list their laureates by what look like superficially similar criteria can't justify all the others who don't. Again, go explain to me how this is universally accepted if on examples like the Nobel list, Harvard was given over 150 while it only officially claimed 51. Let me explain why Harvard count is different from List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. The official count of Harvard University doesn't include all the Nobel laureates affiliated with Harvard. It only includes long-term academic staff. Has Harvard denied that Adam Riess, a Nobel Laureate and Harvard graduate, is not affiliated with Harvard? No. Harvard uses the same definition of academic affiliation as we do, but they use their own subjective criteria while counting Nobel affiliates. I think I have made my arguments very clear! Ber31 (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * " but they use their own subjective criteria while counting Nobel affiliates": hence you admit there are indeed multiple valid ways by which prize winners can be counted. Why choose your particular one out of all others (especially if it is not the one used by other sources)? You still haven't addressed any of the rest of the argument. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are multiple ways by which prize winners can be counted. However, here on this website we can't use subjective criteria because of No original research and Neutral point of view. The only "criteria" that can be used on the list is almost the universally accepted definition of "academic affiliation". How many times do I have to explain the same thing over and over again? Ber31 (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are multiple ways by which prize winners can be counted, and despite your repeated unsupported assertions that this is "universally accepted", both set of criteria look equally subjective to me (is it really correct to list someone as affiliated to a university they taught at for only a short while, or where they studied for a bachelors when in fact that didn't have much to do with the topic/reason they were ultimately awarded a prize?). You can keep acting as though your point must be accepted by other people. That's disruptive, and I will not entertain it any further. Good luck convincing others (please don't, you've already bludgeoned this debate too much here and at other places), I'm done, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Other editors have a right to accept or reject my arguments! Ber31 (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Since your comment contains two sentences that begin "Again", may I (again ;) ) request that people not just repeat the same arguments over and over verbatim? I do not think it is necessary or helpful for judging consensus. --JBL (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename to List of Turing Award laureates - affiliations with corporate labs are often as important as affiliations with university research centers. I don't agree with the WP:SYNTH arguments for deletion, and unlike the Fields Medal article this information isn't on the main Turing Award article. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 18:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose usurping that redirect, which currently points to the actually-list-notable list of winners at the main Turing Award article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comment at Articles for deletion/List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation. Ajpolino (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Per @RandomCanadian and my argument at earlier discussions. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:OR as nothing like this list exists in the real world. It is just yet another WP:TRIVIA content-fork of two unrelated topics (Turing Award laureates and the incredibly vague by 'university affiliation') cobbled together through WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY for trivia. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this list doesn't violate WP:OR. Here is my argument:. Academic affiliation isn't "incredibly vague". Editors who are show confusion on basic concepts like academic affiliation should be questioned for their eligibility to participate in these types of AFDs. Please read my argument carefully. Here is the diff:. Nothing like this list exists in the real world? Take a look at this:. MIT is counting the long-term academic staff who won the Turing award. That MIT list doesn't include Whitfield Diffie, an MIT graduate and Turing award winner. However, MIT accepts that Diffie is an MIT graduate. Here is an article:Turing Award Goes to Cryptography Pioneer ’65 A slight problem with WP:SYNT can be solved by putting the schools in the alphabetical order. Routine calculations do not count as WP:OR or WP:SYNT. Thus, you "delete vote" has been completely refuted by my arguments. Ber31 (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Subjective criteria are not routine calculations, which are by definition objective. The rest of your argument has effectively been countered; and alleging that other editors are incompetent by linking CIR is incredibly impolite and disruptive (see WP:IDHT), even if you're utterly convinced that you are right and all others are wrong. And you are obviously misinterpreting CALC. It clearly says "Comparisons of statistics present particular difficulties. Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies." Yet here we have sources which clearly use different methodologies... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * When did I say that subjective criteria are routine calculations? What are you saying? This list counts long term affiliates of MIT Turing award affiliates. This reliable source says Whitfield Diffie is an MIT graduate. Using both reliable sources in the list is acceptable. Routine calculations do not count as WP:OR or WP:SYNT. I assume good faith, but I do think that editors have to read a lot to participate in these types of AFDs. Ber31 (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We can use WP:COMMONSENSE! Ber31 (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not misinterpreting CALC. We are not "comparing statistics from sources that use different methodologies". We are using both sources for "adding". Ber31 (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Using both reliable sources in the list is acceptable.": euh, no, it clearly is not. This is not a routine calculation, such as simple mathematics. This is taking a source which says "A attended B" and then equating this with "A is academically affiliated with B"; which are not the same thing. Given the different sources use different methodologies for determining whether someone is affiliated with an institution or not, we cannot take a stance on which one of these methodologies is correct or not (see WP:NPOV: Wikipedia does not take a stance in disputes, it describes them in proportion to their position in sources). Yet here you are, continuously arguing that one method (the one which happens to match the fewest number of sources, yet is also the one used in the article) is "universally accepted". You seem to not comprehend what "universally accepted" means: something that is "universally accepted" is used and accepted by everyone, without question [like the speed of light, or the orbital period of the earth, or the definition of what a prime number is]. Clearly, there is no such "universally accepted" criteria, and your appeal to "common sense" should really be tempered with WP:There is no common sense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * RC:This is taking a source which says "A attended B" and then equating this with "A is academically affiliated with B"; which are not the same thing. No, RC! If student A is a graduate of university B, student A is academically affiliated with university B. WP:COMMONSENSE! This source and this source don't use "different methodologies for determining whether someone is affiliated with an institution or not". This list counts long term affiliates of MIT Turing award affiliates and this reliable source says Whitfield Diffie is an MIT graduate. Using both sources to say that Tim Berners-Lee, Michael Stonebraker, Shafi Goldwasser, Silvio Micali, Barbara Liskov, Ronald Rivest, Butler Lampson, Fernando Corbato, Marvin Minsky, and Whitfield Diffie are all affiliates of MIT would be completely correct! All we are doing is adding! Ber31 (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Final note: shouting "COMMONSENSE" at people when they expressly tell you that they disagree that this is common sense (again, go look at WP:There is no common sense), and provide reasons why, is borderline condescending. No further comment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete (in case that's not clear). Despite protestations, there's no universal or obvious or commonsense definition of affiliation, as the elaborate explanations on the page itself make painfully clear. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 16:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete due to WP:OR and failing WP:LISTN. As explained ad nauseum above, the inclusion criteria is OR and therefore inclusion in the list is the result of SYNTH. Editors !voting keep have not been able to provide adequate sources or evidence of why this criteria should be used. Further, I cannot find any sources supporting this grouping as prizes are awarded to individuals. Even the Turing Award site only mentions the university background of recipients as part of a general biography. I might be persuaded for an extremely limited merge with Turing Award (if sources support this) in the style of the Fields Medal page only listing affiliation at time of award as an extra column in the recipients table. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Elaboration I have already "voted" keep above. I will elaborate my arguments further. I will try as hard as possible to salvage this list. I have re-arranged the list in the alphabetical order. Thus, the structure of the list has changed. The list is different from how it was when it was nominated for deletion. The ranking of universities has been removed. By avoiding the ranking and after the re-arrangement of the list in the alphabetical order, we can make sure that this list avoids "chest-thumping exercise", thus refuting the "delete vote" of User:David Eppstein. Headline counts should not be a problem since routine calculations do not count as WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. Let me give an example. Cornell University counts 2 Turing award laureates as Cornell affiliates: Juris Hartmanis and John Hopcroft. As per this reliable source, Robert Tarjan was an assistant professor at Cornell. As per this reliable source, Edmund M. Clarke has PhD from Cornell. Thus, as per the reliable sources, Cornell has 4 Turing award laureates. All we are doing is counting! WP:SYNTHESIS is violated when different sources are put together as a form of analysis or to reach non-explicitly stated conclusions. The list makes no such attempt. All we are doing is regular counting. Routine calculations do not count as WP:OR or WP:SYNT. Thus, the claim that this list violates WP:SYNTHESIS has been refuted. There are several universities that has their own lists of Turing award laureates affiliated with those universities. For instance, here is list published by University of Chicago:. Thus, the claim that this list is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization is completely false. Let me refute the claim that the inclusion criteria of the list violates No original research. The only "criteria" used on this list is the definition of "academic affiliation". Academic affiliation with a university is a universally defined term in academia: students, long-term academic staff, and short-term academic staff or visitors. This definition is like an axiom. Here is an article on "academic affiliation" published by THE. Go to various department's website with proper directory presented, for instance, see: University of Massachusetts, MIT , Stanford , University of Florida and UC Irvine . In "people" you will see lists of students, faculty, affiliated faculty, emeritus faculty, etc. If you aren't familiar with universities, keep in mind that "academic affiliation", has something to with "academics". To be considered as academic affiliates, individuals have to be involved in employment level duties, namely teaching university-level courses or doing research. Long-term academic staff and short-term academic staff are considered as academic affiliates because they are involved in employment level duties. Administrative staff don't have to teach or do research, so they are non-academic affiliates. Graduates are considered as "academic affiliates" since they studied at universities for academic degrees. This is so elementary. Universities define academic affiliation in the same way as it is defined here. There is absolutely no controversy when it comes to the definition of academic affiliation. Editors who are unable to grasp such elementary facts or show confusion should be questioned for their eligibility to participate in these types of AFDs. Here is the CV of Wolfgang Ketterle: The CV is published by a major university (in this case, MIT), so it can be considered as a reliable source. It isn't published by a blog or personal website. Please review how Wolfgang Ketterle has classified his academic affiliations ("Education" and "Employment, research") in his CV. In List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation, the official academic affiliations fall into three categories, namely alumni (graduates and attendees), long-term academic staff, and short-term academic staff. Universities also define and classify academic affiliation in the same manner. In List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation, there is a reliable source for every entry. Thus, the claim that the inclusion criteria of the list violates WP:NOR has been completely refuted. Some editors are confused because different universities' Turing award counts are different from this list. That is because different universities use different subjective criteria while counting Turing award laureates in their official lists. For instance, here is an article published by Princeton University:Alumni win Turing Award, top honor in computer science. As per that article, 11 Turing award laureates are affiliated with Princeton University as of 2021 (Aho and Ullman + past winners of the Turing Award). That article only counted alumni and long-term faculty of Princeton University. As per this source, Allen Newell was a graduate attendee at Princeton University. As per this source, Richard Hamming was a visitor at Princeton University. As per this source, Shafi Goldwasser was a visitor at Princeton University. As per, this source, John Hopcroft was an assistant professor at Princeton University. As per this source, Pat Hanrahan was an an assistant professor at Princeton University. Thus, as per the reliable sources, 16 affiliates of Princeton University are affiliated with Princeton University as of 2021. That is what this list shows. All we did was regular counting. When a detailed analysis is done on this list, it is clear that this list doesn't violate any policies of this website. Ber31 (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTHESIS is violated when different sources are put together as a form of analysis or to reach non-explicitly stated conclusions. Right, such as the analysis you made of the sources that an additional two people meet the criteria for this list to reach the non-explicitly stated conclusion that four Turing Award laureates are affiliated with Cornell. I know you think it's self-evident that this is the way the laureates should be counted (i.e. by this definition of affiliation), but if that's not how the sources do it, then we're producing novel content. It would be the same thing if we were listing them by some other kind of information that we can extract from the sources, such as birth year: if the sources don't list them that way, we're producing novel content. Producing novel content is not allowed on Wikipedia.This source you cited doesn't really back up your assertion that this list's criteria correspond to a universally accepted definition of affiliation (it doesn't define the term at all); if anything it contradicts it, since it speaks of losing one's affiliation to universities by losing one's job whereas this list includes former temporary employments. TompaDompa (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * TompaDompa: Your arguments on WP:SYNTHESIS are completely wrong. You have basically misunderstood what WP:SYNTHESIS really is. Any neutral editor who has decent understanding of WP:SYNTHESIS can point out that you are wrong on WP:SYNTHESIS. Please read what I wrote above carefully. This is not the only source that I cited. There are other sources that I cited that you didn't study. Please study, , , and . Ber31 (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * TompaDompa: How many times do I have to explain it to you that universities define academic affiliation in the same way as it is defined here? They use subjective criteria while counting Turing affiliates in their official lists. Such subjective criteria cannot be applied to Wikipedia lists because of No original research and Neutral point of view. How many times do I have to explain the same thing to you over and over again? Read what I wrote above:
 * Ber31 (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The first three links don't contain "affiliation", "affiliated", or "affiliate" even once – they're all "people". The fourth one distinguishes between "faculty", "emeritus faculty", and "affiliated faculty". The fifth one again doesn't mention "affiliation" or any variation thereof, it's all "faculty". Perhaps you can provide a quote from a source which you think demonstrates that the criteria used by this list (i.e. the three paragraphs in the WP:LEAD beginning with The university affiliations in this list are all official academic affiliations such as degree programs and official academic employment. and ending with Non-academic affiliations such as advisory committee and administrative staff are also excluded from the list.) correspond to the universally accepted definition of affiliation? I'm seeing more and more evidence that this is not in fact a universally accepted definition.What I think is missing here is a justification for listing the laureates this way. That's not "this way as opposed to some variation of this way", that's "why are we listing them this way at all?" Do reliable sources list them this way? If other sources are using what you call subjective criteria, on what grounds do we list them in this entirely different way? TompaDompa (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * TompaDompa: This source lists All Faculty & Staff, Tenure-Track & Teaching Faculty, Adjunct Faculty, Research Scientists & Fellows, Emeritus Faculty, In Memoriam, Staff Directory, PhD Students, Master's Students, and Advisory Board. Who are they? They are all affiliates of the department. Got it? This source lists Department Administration, Faculty, Emeritus Faculty, Affiliated Faculty, Graduate Students, and Staff. Who are they? They are all affiliates of the department. Got it? Please read what I wrote above. Ber31 (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're saying those are the affiliates. The sources don't say that. That's the problem. TompaDompa (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources don't say that they are not the affiliates. Sources include them because they are affiliates! Ber31 (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fallacious reasoning. The source is only a directory, and nowhere does it say "affiliates". As far as we know, it might just be a convenient way to facilitate communication. You suffering from confirmation bias and deciding that they are "affiliates" is not a valid reason to think they are. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, there is no "fallacious reasoning" from my part. How do you define "affiliate"? An affiliate can be defined as "officially attach or connect (a subsidiary group or a person) to an organization." This source lists All Faculty & Staff, Tenure-Track & Teaching Faculty, Adjunct Faculty, Research Scientists & Fellows, Emeritus Faculty, In Memoriam, Staff Directory, PhD Students, Master's Students, and Advisory Board. They are all officially attached or connected to that department. Thus, they are all affiliates of the department. Got it? Ber31 (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How do you define "affiliate"? The correct answer is "I don't, I leave that to the sources." And the source you linked to doesn't define "affiliate" (or even mention the term). You're assuming that these are the affiliates and engaging in something akin to circular reasoning as a consequence. I'll also note that the link you provided includes "Staff Directory" and "Advisory Board" whereas the definition of affiliation used by List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation explicitly excludes Non-academic affiliations such as advisory committee and administrative staff. TompaDompa (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * TompaDompa:How do you define "affiliate"? The correct answer is "I don't, I leave that to the sources." As per Merriam-Webster, "affiliate" is defined as "to bring or receive into close connection as a member or branch". As per your logic, we should define every words! That makes no sense. Should we use Merriam-Webster to define every words? "Staff Directory" and "Advisory Board" are affiliated with that dept., but they are not included in List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation because they don't have to teach or do research, they are non-academic affiliates. Ber31 (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How "affiliate" is defined is irrelevant if the sources do not combine this to come to the explicit conclusion. Your argument here is not much different from the final example in WP:SYNTH, as explained there: The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Replace "Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism" with "Merriam-Webster definition of affiliate"; and adjust the final bit to match, and you have exactly the argument you are making. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Now look. No one is to talk about anyone's affiliation until I blow this whistle, do you understand? Even -- and I want to make this absolutely clear -- even if they do have a Turing Award! <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 18:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh no. Quick, Awake! Make yourselves ready for the battle... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Plea: In the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the Saints and Apostles, can we have a close now to this sorry scarecrow of a discussion? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 06:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Putting together multiple sources for a universal list when not a sufficient number of them demonstrably agree on a definition of affiliation entails one source's criteria being privileged over others, which constitutes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The University of Massachusetts Amherst source above is a directory, and nowhere it is indicated that it has the same criterion of inclusion as others; indeed, TompaDompa seems to prove the contrary. Avilich (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. First of all, per WP:NLIST, Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.... This is exactly such case. For example, here. Using such award recepients for ranking Universities? Yes, sure. That is what many sources do (link above). I do not see any problem. My very best wishes (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That book misspells "Nobel" multiple times, and it only mentions the Turing Award twice, giving a different affiliation count than the article does for Stanford. I'm doubtful it should be taken as reliable (and it certainly isn't in-depth); if it is, then it just underscores the WP:SYNTH problem and the lack of "universal" criteria for what counts as affiliation. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The claim that nine Harvard graduates have become 30 heads of state is also concerning -- perhaps even frightening. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 12:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is clear just from the book's title ("Higher Education in the Arab World") that this is not offering in-depth coverage about the topic of university affiliations. The fact that even in ranking universities (and it doesn't explicitly rank them, it just gives a list of the few top achievers without telling which one is better than the other), it seems to be using multiple other significant criteria, and only gives a passing mention to the "number of Turing Award Laureates", confirms this. Plus, the dubious reliability of the source (there are many basic copy-editing and factual faults, even beyond the ones mentioned above) precludes it from being acceptable for LISTN or GNG purposes. Not that either of these two things has anything to do with the argument for deletion, so in short even the red herring argument provided here is refuted, probably much more convincingly than at the Nobel list page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That particular ref does not matter. Almost every reference currently on the page (such as ), makes a connection between this award and the Alma mater of the recipient, exactly as our policy requires ("One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources..."). This is exactly the same as with Nobel Prize winners. What is the difference? My very best wishes (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Alma mater and university affiliation are not the same thing. If you want to demonstrate the notability of the intersection between receiving the Turing Award and university affiliation, you can't use some other topic as evidence. TompaDompa (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, "affiliation" is wider. But obviously, everyone who received his degree in University X (Princeton in this example) was affiliated with the University while attending it. Hence belongs to the list. The criteria for inclusion are very clear. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to disagree on "very clear". Consistent? Maybe. Reflecting the consensus of reliable sources about which criteria to use for assigning Turing Award laureates to universities? It does not appear so. But that's really a separate question. My point was that if you want to demonstrate the notability of the broader topic, you need sources about the broader topic, not the narrower one. TompaDompa (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And of course there are such sources . I should run though. Anyone can find many sources. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't bloody believe it, this is almost humourous at this stage: "Missing information are manually collected from the WIkipedia page of the laureates"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A key theme of Turing's work was the question of whether a given decision process will eventually arrive at a result, or just go on forever. We appear to have here an example of the latter case. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 02:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator. DeathStarArchitect (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.