Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female 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The result was Withdrawn. Apparently, in this instance, people do not share my dislike and WP:NOT concerns about intersections like this (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of female Nobel laureates

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

~~I could go on about how this fails WP:NOT or something, but then that's going to invite round-about arguments about how it supposedly doesn't.~~ So let's go for something simpler, and far less ambiguous: this is patent and blatant WP:OR (being first published on Wikipedia and thus OR by definition) which provides no encyclopedic content except some unsourced statistical trivia about when the last woman to win a Nobel or how many have won x category of prizes (and statistics being correct is not a reason to keep an article). An hypothetical Gender bias of Nobel Prizes or Systematic bias of Nobel Prizes could be a valid encyclopedic article, but that doesn't seem to justify this kind of list.

Update: Also obviously fails WP:NOTMIRROR, as this is a near exact copy of the nobelprize.org page on the same subject; and WP:NOTSTATS/WP:INDISCRIMINATE (as, beyond the OR statistics about how many women have won X category of prizes, or which one was the first one, there is nothing else to this); and the excessive quotes (all copied from the same nobelprize.org page) are also probably WP:QUOTEFARM/WP:COPYVIO issues RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how this could be described as WP:OR when it seems well cited throughout. CT55555 (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If something is not published anywhere but on Wikipedia, then it is OR by definition; even if the facts in it are correct and "well-cited throughout". We don't have List of female Grammy Award winners nor of any other similar ones, even though one could probably similarly conjure up one which has all the facts correct. If no external source exists to provide valid encyclopedic content about this, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia (which is supposed to be a reflection of external sources, not an original compilation). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But lists of women nobel prize winners do appears elsewhere:
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/nobel-prize-awarded-women/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/featured/sns-stacker-women-nobel-prize-winners-20210824-ag6mn4f5hneldbcnjrip6whkai-photogallery.html CT55555 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I should probably bring up the NOT arguments, then. WP:NOTMIRROR seems to fairly obviously apply; the page, except for the lead, is an exact copy (with different formatting) of the nobelprize.org page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I have refuted the justification that you included in the nomination, then I'm less interested in starting over with a new justification, it doesn't seem reasonable that I can refute your reason and you can just change the justification when you lose the argument. CT55555 (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The stats are still OR (since no source which comments on their significance has been presented) and without an external source to provide additional encyclopedic content (as opposed to a mere copy of the listing) then this article is still not proper for Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Featured article; why would any experienced editor think of deleting it? Mathsci (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that just means that whenever it passed FA (which was 14 years ago), standards where less stringent. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the list obviously fails criteria no. 1 and 2 (Wikipedia:Featured list criteria); as the lead (the only non-quoted prose) is not particularly "professional writing", nor is it particularly insightful or informative... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN and cleanup as needed. The topic of female Nobel laureates has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, e.g. Gender and Science: Women Nobel Laureates (Journal of Creative Behavior, 2011, "Eleven female Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry and physiology/medicine between 1901 and 2006 were compared with 37 males who received the Nobel Prize in the same area one year prior and one year after the women."), Gender bias in Nobel prizes (Nature, 2019, "In 2018, Professor D. Strickland received the Nobel Prize in Physics as the first woman in 55 years. From 1901 to 2018, the Nobel Prize in Physics has been awarded 112 times to 209 different candidates; among these are only two more women; namely M. Curie in 1903 and M. Goeppert Mayer in 1963."), A Prize for Grumpy Old Men? Reflections on the Lack of Female Nobel Laureates (Gender & History, 2014), Who can get the next Nobel Prize in infectious diseases? (International Journal of Infectious Diseases 2016, "In the future, more female laureates would be expected in the IDR field."), Secret history (Physics World, 2007, "Why have there been so few female Nobel laureates in science – and just two in physics? The usual retort is to blame universities for not allowing women to study there until well into the 19th century."), Iraqi Women and Science: Past, Present and Future (Journal of Medical and Surgical Research 2016, "One simple check of the prestigious Nobel Prize winners since its establishment in 1901 will show that among the 49 female recipients of prize, only 17 of them won the prize for scientific contributions. Among these, 14 female winners shared the prize with male colleagues. Also 12 of these prizes were in the field of medicine or physiology, while only 2 in physics and 4 in chemistry."), Women in physics representation in Malaysian universities (AIP Conference Proceedings, 2021, "As to date, only three women have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics out of 51 female Nobel Laureates since 1901. The percentage of women laureates has roughly doubled in the 21st century."), Gender differences in mathematics and science competitions: A systematic review, (Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2019, "Since 1901, Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine have been awarded to 604 outstanding researchers. Only 19 of these researchers were women (The Nobel Foundation, 2018).") Beccaynr (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem to justify a Gender bias of Nobel Prizes article (all of these sources seem to specifically talk about the bias of it); not an uninformative stats-list like this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think an article about Gender bias in Nobel Prizes could also be created, with greater depth exploring the various research, but it does not undermine the notability of this list, per the sources and the WP:LISTN guideline. The existence of women Nobel laureates as a group or set is notable, and the issue of bias also appears to be notable. Beccaynr (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another example: Gender and societies: a grassroots approach to women in science (Royal Society Open Science 2019, includes the notable group: "Since 2000, there have been seven female Nobel laureates out of a total of 174 in physics, chemistry, medicine and economics", followed by an overview of research, a mathematical model, and a conclusion: "when the stakes are low, efforts to tackle historic gender bias towards men have been at least partially successful, but when the stakes are higher male dominance is often still the norm.") Beccaynr (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But all the sources are specifically about the topic of gender bias, not the wider topic of female Nobel winners / scientists more generally. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From my view, the research and commentary is the secondary sourcing that helps make the list of winners notable, because the winners are the starting point that is worthy of notice. The sources I cited above are from a quick run through results I found on GScholar, and there seems to be a pattern typical to science: observe a noteworthy phenomenon, and then explore why it exists. That is why two articles seem supported by the sources, because there appears to be strong support for finding women Nobel laureates notable, based on the secondary sources that then proceed to analyze and comment on the group or set.

There is also a more straightforward compilation, e.g. The Nobel Prize (1901-2000): Handbook of Landmark Records (2007, e.g. pp. 18-19, 23-26, 33, 42), and additional examples of using the representation of women in the Nobel prize as a starting point for research and discussion, e.g. Women in Neuroscience: A Short Time Travel (Reference Module in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Psychology 2020, "Female Nobel laureates are not lacking but they are very few indeed. Between 1901 and 2019, the Nobel Prizes were awarded to 21 women (Marie Curie received it in Physics in 1903 and in Chemistry in 1911) out of 615 scientists. However, cases of women who have been denied the recognition they deserved have emerged in recent years."). Beccaynr (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr: I'm not sure that coverage of a sub-topic establishes that an article about the larger topic it is part of is ok. Coverage about Gender bias in academia is not coverage about Academia, it is coverage about one sub-part of it (and if there were an article about academia which was solely based on coverage about the gender bias, it would obviously not be a very balanced treatment of the subject and would surely fall foul of several policies). Coverage about Racism in the United States is not coverage about Racism (and if the article about racism focused solely on matters from the US, that would be obviously a bad article). If an article about "Women in science" really only covered the sexism, it really would have to be renamed (as the title would be misleading). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the secondary analysis and commentary on the larger topic of female Nobel winners supports the notability of the group. There also does not appear to only be coverage related to gender bias, and even if there is, the notability of the group of winners still seems supported. These are the women who have, according to many sources, managed to overcome various barriers. Gender bias in Nobel Prizes is not the same as coverage of female Nobel Laureates, it is coverage about one sub-part of it (and if there were an article about female Nobel laureates which was solely focused on gender bias, instead of the facts of representation reported by the various sources, it would seem to need a separate article to manage the large and distinctly notable topic of gender bias). Coverage about bias is not coverage of the women themselves, who are notable as a group or set for their accomplishments. The sources and guidelines therefore appear to support an article focused on female winners, as well as a separate article for some of the context. Beccaynr (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the WP Library, I have found more examples of sources that can support both a list article focused on winners and an article focused on the disparity, e.g.
Nobel Prize Women in Science: Their Lives, Struggles, and Momentous Discoveries - a book that "explores the reasons for this astonishing disparity by examining the lives and achievements of fifteen women scientists who either won a Nobel Prize or played a crucial role in a Nobel Prize", which according to Publishers Weekly "introduces the small pantheon of women leaders in science whose careers and words offer advice and inspiration, if small comfort, to women in science today", and according to Kirkus Reviews "allows the facts-documented in interviews with and in records of the women—to speak for themselves."

"Strickland gets Nobel Prize nod: University of Waterloo scientist first woman to win Nobel Prize for physics in 55 years for work with lasers" Waterloo Region Record Oct. 3, 2018, contextualizing her win as part of the group and includes what appears to be an attempt at humor about her getting promoted to a full professorship. (via ProQuest)

"Nobel Nominations in Science: Constraints of the Fairer Sex", Annals of Neurosciences, Jul2018, Vol. 25, Issue 2 (via EBSCOhost) - begins with the group, including Marie Curie, Maria Goeppert-Mayer, Irène Joliot-Curie, Gerty Cori, and Rosalyn Yalow, and then explores factors contributing to why so few women have won the prize. The article notes, inter alia, "Men's share as professors worldwide was 80–95% even in 1990", and notes in its conclusion about gender disparities in science, "The reasons that can be attributed to such a trend are manifold." Beccaynr (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A list highlighting a well-defined set of 58 out of the 943 notable individuals who have won the prize, a disparity which is the topic of several sources listed above. PamD 09:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a notable topic covered by reliable sources. I agree that we could benefit from a more thoughtful article about bias and Nobel Prizes and I encourage the nominator to start that page. We can discuss a possible merge once the bias article is well established. pburka (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With so many similar AfDs currently running, it is a challenge to manage related discussions, but with regard to a merge (because some of the sources I found were added to a narrowly-titled draft by the nominator) I would like to repeat what I said in the List of black Nobel laureates AfD: From an WP:IAR standpoint, I also think it is not a great look for the encylopedia to only define marginalized groups from within the confines of their oppression (i.e. focus only on bias, systemic or otherwise) without having a place to celebrate what people have collectively accomplished, despite the various biases and other factors that may contribute to disparities but also make the group accomplishment worthy of notice. Beccaynr (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If sources only discuss a topic from a certain angle, even if it's not exactly the most favourable one, then as encyclopedia writers we should be faithfully following the sources. I've always been dubious on intersection (i.e. "A" who are also "B") lists, but particularly if there's coverage only about one aspect of this intersection, then I'm not convinced a list provides that much pertinent information to the reader. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is faithfully following the sources to focus on the notable group, RandomCanadian, and I encourage you to review WP:BLUDGEON at this point. Beccaynr (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion, and well, you made a point, so I answered. If it is "faithfully following the sources", you should be able to find sources whose primary focus is not on the bias but on the group itself. If all the sources you seem to find are mainly about the bias (and they certainly appear to be), well, too bad, we should follow that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you continue to assert "all the sources" are mainly about bias, when they obviously are not, and as if this would undermine the notability of this list. You began this discussion by asserting there were no secondary sources, and then after sources were produced, have appeared to insist that these women should only be defined as marginalized and oppressed, and that all of the sources discussing their accomplishments should be ignored. I think we should follow WP:LISTN, and recognize that this is a group well-supported in secondary sources as notable, and we can keep this list as a resource for our readers. Beccaynr (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we merge racism and sexism and ableism into systemic inequality? I think not. And that's probably because they are notable subjects in their own right. Just as this is. I think the notability of the subject has been shown and it seems a bit WP:SNOWBALL in that direction here. CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The contrary is that we obviously shouldn't merge Sexism in academia into Academia or Racism in the United States into Racism (or at least, not in whole, as that would greatly unbalance those). And yet here we're seemingly happy with having a list on "female Nobel winners" when in fact all the sources are about "bias against female Nobel winners". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources all tend to mention the bias, but they are not all about the bias, here's some examples that are mostly about the women:
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/art-books-music/a34328866/nobel-prizes-2020-women/

https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/07/two-crispr-scientists-win-nobel-prize-in-chemistry/

https://uwaterloo.ca/news/women-nobel-prize-physics CT55555 (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Vereckey, Betsy (March 15, 2022). "The 58 women who have won the Nobel Prize". The Telegraph. Retrieved 22 May 2022., that I added to the article during this discussion, as well as the The Nobel Prize (1901-2000): Handbook of Landmark Records noted above, and every source that begins by identifying the notable group as a starting point for secondary analysis and commentary. Beccaynr (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources listed by Beccaynr, and many others exist, this is one of those perennial discussions. If someone were to write an article about (gender) bias in the Nobels that would be interesting but does not invalidate the existence of this useful & interesting list. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep plenty of sources provided, blasts past WP:GNG and WP:LISTN.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2022 (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.