This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Michigan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have split off four articles from this main one. The four sub articles can be found at:

• List of University of Michigan arts alumni
• List of University of Michigan business alumni
• List of University of Michigan law and government alumni
• List of University of Michigan sporting alumni

Hope this is better. The main article's now down to 50k, from 175 or so. The articles could still do with some assertive editing (for example, expunging all the red links and waffle, but it's a start. Proto::type 15:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very long article, even after all the great work others have done to prune it and split it up. I think there are some improvements that can be made to the table of contents to make it easier to navigate. In particular:

1. Putting everything under a top-level Alumni heading is redundant, as the article title makes clear who these people are. I propose removing this extraneous level of heading in order to streamline the table of contents.
2. Award-winner sections are all over the place, with Nobel laureates listed first, some (e.g., Pulitzer Prizes) listed alphabetically, and others (e.g., Turing Award) listed in the relevant sections. I propose starting the list with an Awards section containing the major award categories, with Nobels listed first and the others alphabetically.
3. Move the only entry under Military into List of University of Michigan law and government alumni.
4. Sections like Law, government, and public policy that are just links to other articles should have at least a couple sentences summarizing the truly notable alumni in those categories, as the bare link to the referenced article makes for an unappealing presentation.
5. Move the Fictional Wolverines section to the end, just before References, and retitle Fictional characters.

In summary, it would look like this:

• Award winners
  • Nobel laureates
  • [other major awards listed alphabetically]
• Academia and education
  • Educators
  • University presidents
• Arts (summary paragraph, link to List of University of Michigan arts alumni)
• Business and not-for-profits
  • Business (include only entry under Finance)
  • Not-for-profit
• Engineering and technology
  • Aerospace
  • Computers and technology
  • Other engineering
• Journalism, publishing, and broadcasting
• Law, government, and public policy (summary paragraph, link to List of University of Michigan law and government alumni)
• Newsmakers
  • Activists
  • Criminals and other infamous newsmakers
  • Other newsmakers
• Science and medicine
  • Astronauts
  • Mathematics
  • Medicine
  • Science
• Sports
• Fictional characters
• References
• External links

Sarcasmboy (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for undertaking this. I think it's a good idea. My only concern is that there will be some confusion when a prominent (for example) physicist is listed under the Nobel Prize, rather than as a physicist. Maybe it's not so much an issue with a Nobel, which is likely to be anyone's crowning achievement, but the case of other awards maybe not so much. It's easy for example to imagine a journalist whose Pulitzer is just one of many achievements in a long career - not quite so defining, in other words. The problem already exists in the current page, and I don't think this makes it much worse, but if we're going to split out "award winners" then that separate list of awards has to be kept short, pared down to the three or four in the world that are in fact, defining and the first thing that comes to mind when you think of their recipients. Indeed now that I am thinking about it, maybe some awards - ones that don't cut across disciplines like the Nobel - could and should remain under the relevant "profession" heading. JohnInDC (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your concerns about award winners being confusing to find. I considered proposing paring the list of awards down to a very small number, but thought that might lead to debates about what constitutes a "major" or "defining" award. I don't think anyone would argue that a Nobel Prize is a major award, but I suspect it very quickly becomes a matter of perspective after that. The absolute number of recipients of such awards is small enough that maybe it is worth listing them twice, once in a bare list at the top, and again with a short summary sentence in their relevant category. I do think having some rhyme or reason to where the award categories go would be preferable to the current hybrid. I was looking for examples of similar articles to see how they organized this information and have yet to find any that I feel did a great job of doing so clearly. Sarcasmboy (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Nobel is special not only because it's such a singular honor, but because it cuts across many fields and can't be put under any other. MacArthur grants aren't quite as profound, but they're equally hard to categorize. Otherwise - I wonder if most major awards fall within a particular field? I dunno - bears a bit of looking (but I'm watching the football team play right now and am disinclined to look in this instant). JohnInDC (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a coincidence, I am also watching that game! But I am also easily distracted so looked at the non-Nobel awards represented on the page:

• Churchill Scholarship or Marshall Scholarship: None of these people are Wikilinked, so (without further investigation) are likely non-notable. I don't think receiving a scholarship, even a highly selective one, warrants inclusion in this list. I propose removing this section entirely.
• Turing and Grace Murray Hopper Award winners: Fits cleanly within a Computers and technology section
• MacArthur Foundation award winners: Harder to categorize, as you observe, and recipients may be spread across multiple sub-lists in different articles. Maybe these should be moved into their respective profession sections with an annotation.
• Pulitzer Prize winners: split roughly evenly between journalists (listed in this article) and writers/composers (listed in a separate article). This one seems the hardest to reconcile with the current article organization. I think the best thing to do is to move them into their respective professional sections with an annotation that they won a Pulitzer. (Though, as a counter-point, List of Harvard University people does include Nobel and Pulitzer winners at the top, and all other awards are just mentioned in the summary for a person.)
• Rhodes Scholars: Only 9 of 27 people listed have articles, suggesting to me that having been a Rhodes Scholar isn't in itself enough to establish notability, and I think these should be moved to their respective sections with the Rhodes Scholarship mentioned in the summary. This article should be about organizing and summarizing already-notable people associated with the university.
• National Medal of Science Laureates/National Medal of Technology and Innovation: About half of these people are already listed twice, once here and once under their respective profession. I think moving the former under Science and the latter under Engineering and technology would be appropriate. Sarcasmboy (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An unregistered editor is insisting that Park Eason, a deceased high school teacher, be included in this list article. All of the other entries in this list have Wikipedia articles but this person does not and it does not appear that they meet WP:GNG so it's unlikely that they would ever have an article. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. ElKevbo (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted again. You are correct that Park Eason does not meet notability. In addition, the sources included LinkedIn and Instagram. I was going to leave them a message on their talk page since this is a new editor, but it is an IP address. Rublamb (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, these lists are not meant to be all inclusive lists of alumni. They are lists of notable alumni, generally shown as such in a Wikipedia article. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I agree with the deletion of Mr. Eason from this list. He may have been a fine person, but without a Wikipedia article or enough citable material to show that his name SHOULD have an article, he is/was not notable. This is not an insult to his memory. Jax MN (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]