Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prizes known as the Nobel of a field


 * 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   no consensus. This falls just short of consensus to keep (luckily, it doesn't matter). Despite the oddity of the list's topic, many agree that it is notable and verifiable. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

List of prizes known as the Nobel of a field

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A strange and subjective list that includes an actual Nobel Prize in its line-up of would-be Nobels. Notability is absent. Joal Beal (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment All the prizes are notable enough to have their own articles, and on each of these articles you'll find the claim that they're commonly called "the Nobel Prize of [the relevant field]". I included inline citations when they were provided in the original articles. On many of the remaining cases, I believe that the lack of inline citations is simply because it's considered common knowledge (e.g. the Fields Medal). Regarding the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, it is arguable that it can be defined as an "actual Nobel prize", and in any case it fits the description of the list: "fields [that] are not included in the Nobel Prizes, because they were not part of Alfred Nobel's will". And that's quite similar to what its article says: "It is not one of the Nobel Prizes established by the will of Alfred Nobel during 1895, but is commonly identified with them." --Waldir talk 16:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment If we decide to keep it, we should at least change the name, as it is inappropriate for Wikipedia.--RM (Be my friend) 16:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, great that you brought that up, because I initially named it after List of people known as father or mother of something, without noticing that that was a redirect to a better named article: List of persons considered father or mother of a field. Since the article has so little history, I'll be bold and move it to List of prizes known as the Nobel of a field, since I believe that change to be non-controversial (plus, it can always be undone or moved to an even better name later). --Waldir talk 19:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  --  Beloved  Freak  20:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;I've seen "the Nobel prize of such-and-such" used any number of times and there are many related ghits for non-Nobel prizes, so I think the subject is significant enough to be covered as a list. The respective prizes are, after all, considered some of the highest distinctions in their respective fields. This distinction just gives the award relevance for a lay person. But we should make sure the label is applied by a person of significance.&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, unverifiable, completely subjective, downright silly. Hairhorn (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, unverifiable? There are already several citations from reliable sources, and more can certainly be added. As for the other motives you present, they're merely your opinion, which you're entitled to, so I won't argue with that -- but I'll say that they aren't suppose to matter in this debate. --Waldir talk 06:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? Opinions don"t matter in a debate? huh? There may be sources for this entry, but none of them makes this list notable as a list.


 * Delete . This is WP:SYN and OR if anything is. If I refer to the Presidential Medal of Freedom as the Nobel Prize of U.S. Citizenship, can it be on this list? That's a silly question, but most of these entries don't even have bad sources, let alone a rigorous inclusion criteria. Cool Hand Luke 16:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, do you have a reliable source for it? // Liftarn (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if you could present reliable sources for that claim, it would be perfectly reasonable to add it to the list. Also, What do you mean "don't even have bad sources"? Have you even tried looking for any? As for the inclusion criterion, it seems clear to me that it would be something in the lines of "prizes that are often referred to as the nobel of a field", and AFAIK all of the current entries fit that requisite. --Waldir talk 22:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the prizes on the list don't even have bad sources to show they're the "Nobel Prize in X"&mdash;as I said. I don't see why you're requiring a source from me without decimating the list. "Often" is an OR term if anything is. What kind of source is required for that? A source that actually says they're often referred to as a "Nobel Prize in X?" If that's your criteria, it appears you have only perhaps two prizes sourced. Cool Hand Luke 15:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All right, I went and got a few sources. I know, articles should have them, but I think you guys should let them evolve rather than push for deletion. Even though I didn't have to look hard to find them, it took a while to select, compile and format them into the article. Wikipedians should work out of pleasure, not out of pressure to prevent an article from deletion. All this was an unnecessarily harsh way to deal with the situation, IMO (unless, of course, you genuinely believed these prizes weren't called the Nobels of their fields). --Waldir talk 18:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I honestly did not and do not believe that there is any rigorous criteria for deciding whether a prize should be on this list (BTW, AGF), and formally I think it should be delete. However, I'm loath to delete something where so much work has been invested, so I switch to Keep. Cool Hand Luke 21:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you reconsidered. Sorry if my message came across as assuming bad faith; I was trying to figure out what exactly you meant by the prizes not having sources to prove they're called Nobel of X. I believe I got what you mean now, but I do think we can reach a consensus for reasonable inclusion criteria for this list. I guess this is not the best place to go into details, but if you're interested, we can start a discussion on the topic on the article's talk page, if this AfD gets closed as Keep. --Waldir talk 23:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is now referenced and is a valuable list. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  08:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep well-sourced now.  — fetch ·  comms   03:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - the term "Nobel of ..." is a suplerlative tacked will-nilly on to prizes as a descriptive element. That doesn't just ify a list.  If we want Wikipedia to be the Cadillac of encyclopedias, we need to remove such lists. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep it is a useful list in my opinion.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Expand and merge the prose into a dedicated section in Nobel Prize. Sufficient examples of prizes referred to as the Nobel of their field can and should simply be included in the prose; the list format is not useful for this particular topic, though the topic itself is encyclopedically relevant and would add value to the main article's scope and depth. Just my 2 cents. --83.135.123.77 (talk) 15:43, 27 May 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.