Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Nobel Prize 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 keep. NW (Talk) 22:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Nobel Prize laureates[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Article is unable to proceed without a definition of 'Black' as a race. Defining people by colour is not possible as no empirical method exists to do so and there can be no consensus to achieve this other than by explicit self identification by the persons concerned. Attempting to define the colour of others is illegal in most countries and Wikipedia is at risk in doing so. Even if a definition were both possible and legal the article is unbalanced by representing a single race in the absence of any others. E x nihil ^(talk) 01:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the article is obviously well intentioned, the nominator is right. while any individual or group can advocate for itself and self identify as they wish, WP cannot ever come up with rational criteria for who is of what "race". the only way this list could work is if it only listed nobel winners who publicly stated that they were "black", as opposed to some other race, and with no other partial race mentioned. race is a cultural construct, while ethnicity is less so, but only nationality will work for a list like this. this belongs on someones private website, to support cultural unity and self identity for those who identify as "black", and for those who support all people of colors right to self determination, expression, and accomplishment. there is nothing racist or anti-black or even anti left in proposing this for deletion. however, if a book was published on this subject, or a subject which included this list (or one close to it), and was widely discussed and reviewed, we could include it, with sourced commentary on the inevitable controversy over listing awards, etc by race.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rebuild as "non-Caucasian" 70.29.209.91 (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to be type of information people might search for and want to know -- "hmm ... i wonder how many black folks have won a nobel prize. 12 out of 806? hmm, interesting!" Just because there may be a debate from time to time over whether a certain person should be included (obama is half white!), the normal editing process can accommodate that. We don't delete List of African-American firsts, or eliminate the gathering the racial background in the U.S. Census, simply because Tiger Woods is not 100% black.--Milowent (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. He is absolutely correct. This is also the US POV on race. African-American and balck are not the same. What is done in the US census is specifically forbidden in the census of many other countries. "non-Caucasian" has the same problems. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Milowents' comments. The debate about of what shade of colour should be included in the article is moot as would be the illustration that President Obama is actually a white man and debated ad nauseam. The cultural and racial diversity of modern society allows for articles such as this one to be perfectly legitimate not to mention that it is well written, sourced and referenced--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 08:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, a great bit of info that work's equally well for White supremacists and for Black persons who want to play the race card. "Did you know that out of 806 Nobel prizes, only 12 of them went to Black people?" I'd say the same for someone making a table of how many Nobel laureates are Jewish, or gay, or Ivy League graduates or evangelical Christians. Mandsford (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A new introductory sentence that defines "black" would alleviate the nominator's primary concern. The article is correctly referenced and very interesting. Warrah (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Define Black? Would you say Indians are black because some of them are dark? I don't see any problem with having African Nobel Laureates or African-American Nobel prize winners as well. But without a suitable definition of Black, this article shouldn't be kept. --^Writer_Listener 21:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for user WriterListener, each individual Nobel prize winner in this article is identified and their country of origin specified, a quick read or following the link to the individual will dispell any doubt about definition. --Jemesouviens32 (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that what I don't like-- and it goes beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and right into WP:OR -- is the statistical table that has been part of the article from when it first started. It's cited as coming from "Nobel Laureates Facts", but the Nobel Foundation doesn't keep a table of racial statistics. Skin color has nothing to do with whether someone is nominated for a Nobel prize, any more so than having been born in February. Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this work as a new introductory sentence: “To date, there have been 12 Nobel laureates who are either African or of African heritage”? Warrah (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not work with the current title. The term "black" is used in all sorts of ways other than to refer to "African or of African heritage”. For example, Melanesian people have been described as black. Australian Aboriginal people have been described as black. If the title was changed to Nobel Prize laureates of African heritage maybe it should not be deleted, but with the current title it should be deleted. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm not opposed to an article about the Black Nobel laureates, or anything else that lists Nobel laureates of a particular nationality, gender, religious belief, school affiliation, etc.; List of female Nobel laureates and List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University, for instance, are very good articles. I'm inclined to think that the author wasn't intending to argue some sort of point by compiling his or her own table of statistics, but if a point isn't intended, why make a chart like that in the first place? I'd rather the outcome be that the consensus is to keep the article and remove the table, so it doesn't come down to an edit war. Mandsford (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the issue with defining blackness is a red herring here; I don't think anyone would argue that any of the people listed here should not be considered 'black'. If the word 'black' is a problem, 'people of sub-Saharan-African heritage' could be substituted, but I think the meaning is sufficiently clear. A bigger issue with this article is that of original research; is this, in fact, a topic people have written about, or is it an indiscriminate collection of information? A quick search immediately reveals that it is a topic that has received serious attention, and so a Wikipedia article is appropriate. Robofish (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with defining blackness is most certainly NOT a red herring here. To equate "black" with 'people of sub-Saharan-African heritage' is a US-centric POV. This is not the US wikipedia. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I don't see any person on here who could not be described as "black". If there are black (as you define it) Nobel laureates who you believe aren't on the list but ought to be, it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Generally, the last editor is the one who decides whether to write "color" or "colour". Mandsford (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not that Melanesian people or Australian Aboriginal people have been excluded. but that the inclusion criteria are not clear. Note also that I said that Melanesian people and Australian Aboriginal people have been described as black - past tense. They are now just described as Melanesian people and Australian Aboriginal people. The term "black" is derogatory in the South Pacific. It may not be in the US, but we want a term in the title of WP articles which is clearly understood everywhere in the same sense. "Black" does not meet that criteria. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(weak)Delete While interesting, the whole thing depends on original research. I don't think that any reliable source says that lumping together Nobel Prize winners of different nationalities and/or different categories of prizes just because they are considered the same race is a legitimate thing to do. And (although I know this doesn't matter much on WP) I also find the article somewhat offensive, especially the table with all the 0's where no prize was ever won by a black person. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you mean it is offensive that the Nobel committee overlooked the work of black scientists? Warrah (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did they? If the point of the table is to accompany, with statistics, the (published) beliefs of other persons that the Nobel committee was racist, then that's the type of context, with sources, that would logically accompany such a table. On the other hand, if the point is to make people assume that the Nobel people were bigots, or to assume that black scientists are a rarity, then I would say yes, that's offensive. Mandsford (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are correct. I would support removing the table, too. Warrah (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking that the point was being hinted at that maybe black people are not smart enough to win a nobel prize in science. Either way it wouldn't be the job of WP to make a point indirectly. If reliable sources have criticized the Nobel Committee for racism that should be mentioned in its article, not indirectly implied in another article. Northwestgnome (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already voted delete above but one problem with this table is that I suspect 'black' participation will always be undereported because we just don't divide neatly into 'black' and 'white' we are all a rather nice mix. Where is the cutoff point? Half-castes? Quadroons? Octaroons? These degrading terms were used in slave days, the whole discussion is very distasteful and in this day and age unecessary, we are just people and if an African heritage is part of our identity let's just keep that in the bio. Let's not introduce a race ID card to WP. E x nihil ^(talk) 01:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that nobody seems to support having the table in there, I've tried a version that simply lists the twelve Nobel laureates who can be described as being of "Black African" descent. If anyone feels that the table should be in there, it's a simple matter of reverting the changes. If someone can find a term for dark-skinned people of African descent that is in use throughout the entire English-speaking world, it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Assuming an article without the table, then I say keep. Mandsford (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The article provides useful information, although I agree that the table at the beginning is somewhat unnecessary. I would be in favour of renaming if a suitable alternative title can be found, that would comprise all those currently listed. Davshul (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article contains useful information and is properly cited. It does not violate Wikipedia policy. There are several similar articles on Wikipedia that establish a precedent, as described on the article's talk page. When in doubt, I tend to follow the advice several seasoned editors have given me - if it's useful to our readers then keep it. I think this one does that. Truthanado (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not really ambiguous-- the use of the term is to follow what the person uses, or is referred to in major works of reference, as with all other categories. the all such groups are mixed to a considerable extent does not invalidate the concept. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is much better without the table. I still don't think it's a great article, but I would probably have not have voted on this AfD at all were it as it is now. I'm not ready to change my vote to "keep" however since OR is involved to say that "Black" has any meaning in this context. Of course my judgement is influenced by emotion since as an American I have strong feelings about racial issues, so maybe I'll downgrade my vote to "weak delete."

p.s. What would you think of an article on "tall" or "short" Nobel Prize laureates? Northwestgnome (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's ever a "Tall History Month" in the schools, someone might get away with it. John Maynard Keynes would be at the "top" of the list. Mandsford (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I agree this is an US centric/POV take on race, but beside that I don't see a strong argument for deletion based on WP policies. --Jmundo (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.