Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by Sephiroth BCR 23:12, 10 February 2009 [1].

List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates edit

Notified: Scorpion0422, WP SWEDEN, WP NORWAY, WP PRIZE

List of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates should be delisted as a featured list ~~immediately~~. I was the creator of the list, and I'm amazed that it was nominated and promoted to FL without proper research, and nobody notified about the FL nomination to me. Many rationales given in the list are flawed. Examples?

The purpose of FLRC is improvement, not removal for the sake of it. Please also read the FLRC instructions: "Do not nominate lists that have recently been promoted (such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates), or lists that have recently survived a removal attempt – such nominations are likely to be removed summarily." Dabomb87 (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but, this list shouldn't have been promoted to FL. This list fails Wikipedia:Featured list criteria because rationales given from 1901 to 1989 are flawed. A featured list is supposed to exemplify our very best work, but this list isn't the best. AdjustShift (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but we can't do anything about that now. There is no such thing as an immediate delist, and the only thing that can happen is improvement. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Institut de Droit International won the Prize in 1904 not because it is a "Scientific Society, Founded in 1873". It was honored for its efforts as an unofficial body to formulate the general principles of the science of international law.

- Ernesto Teodoro Moneta won the Prize in 1907 not because he was "President, Lombard League of Peace". He was President of Lombard League of Peace at the time he won the Prize. That was not the reason why he won the Prize. He won because of his leadership during the Italian peace movement.

- Elihu Root won the Prize in 1912 not because he was "ex-Secretary of State". He won the Prize primarily for his strong interest in international arbitration and for his plan for a world court, which was later established in 1920.
  - You know, it does also say "Originator of various treaties of arbitration." -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - But that was not the specific reason why he won the Prize. Nobelprize.org has only provided specific rationales from 1989. Before that, it has not provided specific rationales. We have to use different approach for this list. AdjustShift (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationales given for so many Peace Prize laureates are flawed. Nobelprize.org has not provided specific rationales for awarding the Peace Prize from 1901 to 1989. We have to work harder, and find specific rationales from elsewhere. Copy-and-paste won't work. When I created the list I was aware of these problems. I was busy working on the bios of American Civil War generals, so I couldn't work on the list for so long. It is embarrassing that this list was promoted to FL. AdjustShift (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"without proper research", that's highly insulting, and why should I have notified you about the nomination? Sure, you created it, but you abandoned it soon after. I am more than aware that many of the rationales leave much to be desired, and I'll see what I can do. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 14:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AdjustShift, list all of the entries that you have a problem with, and I'll find full rationales (and sources for them). -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 15:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and several speedy keep comments

Comment - I would like to apologize if you find my comment insulting. I don't want to insult anyone. I didn't abandoned it soon after. Nobelprize.org has not provided specific rationales for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize from 1901 to 1989. Rationales given from 1901 to 1989 are flawed. I should have been notified because I was aware of these problems. AdjustShift (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if you were aware, why didn't you say anything before? You should have left comments on the talk page so we could work together and bring things up to code. I have expanded the rationales for the examples you brought up. Please list the rest of the entries you believe need more detail. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have to change rationales from 1901 to 1989. We have to add proper citations from 1901 to 1989. AdjustShift (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per FLRC requirement I echoed User:Dabomb87's comment that the purpose of this process is for improvement, not removal. That aside, I want to speed keep this article because I am not convinced by the nominator's argument. All listed complaints appear to be easy fixes that can be resolved via the list's talk page.—Chris! _ct 00:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Speedy keep??? Chris, rationales given from 1901 to 1989 are flawed. I don't think it can be solved that easily. FLs are supposed to be the best lists on WP. List of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates has many flaws. AdjustShift (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no "speedy keep" or "immediate removal". I will say it again: this process is for improvement, not just general downing statements. Whether the article was promoted or not with AdjustShift's approval doesn't matter anymore; the past cannot change. What we can control is the present. I see AdjustShift has lightened up a bit. Can we just focus on improving the article for now, and worry about the article's status in two weeks? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – that you were the creator of the list and were not notified means squat in terms of the list's featured status. Part of me is calling you out on the more or less obvious fact that if you were actually watching the article, you would have noticed the massive changes it undergone for FLC. In any case, there is no "speedy delist" criteria aside from non-controversial merge proposals (that come with a preexisting consensus) and rather blatant copyright infringement. In any case, if the rationales are flawed, then work with Scorpion in fixing them. Why you simply didn't bring up these concerns on the talk page is beyond me, but whatever at this point. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - sephiroth bcr, when you create something (article or list), you have certain vision about it. When I create it, I wanted to make it more academically acceptable list. The list almost entirely depends on Nobelprize.org; I wanted to add information provided in books and academic journals in the list. This list is an academic list; it is not a pop-culture list. A student or researcher of international relations or political science may use the list for reference. If this were a pop-culture list, I would have brought these concerns on the talk page, but this is an academic list; any article or list related to academics should be perfect. I blame myself for not doing enough for the list before it became a FL. But, I can’t change the past. AdjustShift (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please work on improving this article rather than delist it; it seems you know the topic well. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowy/Speedy Keep - per FLRC instructions outlined above.--TRUCO 23:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Have you read the entire discussion? There should be no "speedy keep" or "immediate removal"; the list has many flaws, and we have to eradiate them. AdjustShift (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have asked Sephiroth to leave this open for the time being, so please stop with the speedy ~~removal~~keep comments. AdjustShift, please list every entry here that you have a problem with (and don't just say all). -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 14:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well most of those were "Speedy keep". Just saying.--TRUCO 20:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I got my terminology mixed up. Fixed. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 20:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never said that I've problems with all rationales. Do I've to copy-and-paste every rationales from 1900s to 1980s here? For 1901 Peace Prize Laureate Frédéric Passy, rationale given is "Founder and President of first French peace society (since 1889 called Société française pour l'arbitrage entre nations)". Passy was "Founder and President of first French peace society" in 1901. That was not the specific reason why he won the Prize. The citation given is also flawed. There are so many similar flaws. I'll start the correction process from today. I'll also add comments on the talkpage of the list. AdjustShift (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status here? If the rationales have been fixed, then there should be no reason to keep this FLRC open. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.