Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian Nobel laureates (2nd nomination)


 * 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   procedural keep. While it is true that the article was previously deleted in 2007 and was recreated without a DRV, the consensus here is that this argument was already deployed in the most recent AFD, which closed "no consensus", and that it is therefore inappropriate to re-run the same argument so soon afterwards in search of a different outcome. The underlying "no consensus" decision of the most recent AFD stands. BencherliteTalk 15:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Christian Nobel laureates
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

According to Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination), this article was to be deleted. The closing administrator at the last deletion discussion suggested an RfC which, essentially, already occurred in the AfD linked above! The consensus was to delete all such lists. It was recreated without any deletion review discussion and the issues outlined at that deletion discussion are not addressed in the recreation of the content. It appears that the Wikipedians who commented on the last discussion were not aware of this previous discussion. The appropriate thing to do is remove this list from articlespace, clean it up, and then bring this list to WP:DRV for recreation. That is what is occurring at User:Bharatiya29/List of Hindu Nobel laureates which is the appropriate solution. If the creator of this list who did it out-of-process would like the list userfied, that would be acceptable to me. There, he could work on the real problems associated with WP:NOR, WP:BLP and WP:RNPOV that are being violated here and once those problems are fixed we can have a proper discussion about whether the proposed content is encyclopedic. Note that a "no consensus" closure default to keep is not a protection against future AfDs. jps (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  San ska ri  Hangout 17:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —  San ska ri  Hangout 17:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —  San ska ri  Hangout 17:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination) was decided in July 2007 while Articles for deletion/List of Christian Nobel laureates was just a week ago and had a no consensu result. Trying to overturn such a recent decision by appealing to an eight year old decision is just wikilawyering. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How is it Wikilawyering? The consensus to delete was clear. There was never a consensus to recreate. You can argue that we should ignore all rules in this case or that we shouldn't be beholden to process, but at least be honest that this is what you are appealing to. I'm pointing out that the community did have consensus on such religion-tagging lists and that these lists were recreated out-of-process and without regard to the previous discussion's documented consensus. jps (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's wikilawyering because you're not identifying any arguments from the old discussion that were missed in the recent decision. The lack of consensus in the more recent discussion was also clear, and Wikipedia policies have developed over time. At the time of the 2007 decision, there was no notability criterion for stand-alone lists (see this version of Wikipedia:Notability). RockMagnetist(talk) 18:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the arguments in the old discussion seemed to be missed. Read the nominator's rationale. Now see if it is reflected in the last discussion. It isn't. Re-discussing a discussion which was closed with clear consensus effectively seems to me to be a waste of time, yet here we are. jps (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're the one re-opening the discussion. The burden is on you to identify the arguments that were overlooked and show they apply to the current version of the article. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I did that. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as to whether that was done or not. jps (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was ready to reconsider until I realized that the debate being cited took place in 2007.  A long discussion has gone on here that was closed just a few days ago as no consensus.    Frankly, I fail to see the point of doing this all over again.  But if we do, my vote will still be to KEEP, and my rationale will not have changed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My scholarly reason for voting KEEP is that there is a burgeoning body of research supporting the idea that the cultural tradition in which an individual is reared have an impact on what an individual does adult life on many levels, including the production of ideas. i.e., your ethnic heritage may have an impact on whether you are likely to engage in the kind of thought production that wins a Nobel Prize.  I do not see that this body of work was discussed in the 2007 debate.  My more straightforward reason is that the world has moved on, Wikipedia has long included article son Muslim, Hindu, and Jewish prize winners.  Makes it hard to delete the article on Christian ones.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but just to be clear the only reason I'm reopening this is because I was surprised that there was never a proper WP:DRV which dealt substantially with the claims of the 2007 discussion, which, I think, is still a valid discussion to consider in light of the current state of the article. If this AfD turns into a de facto WP:DRV discussion, so be it. However, I don't see this point being discussed at all in the previous discussion which worried me greatly since it is such a clean decision and seems to have caused problems elsewhere. To be sure, I think writing an article on religious identity and Nobel Prizes might be worthwhile, but the listicle fashion that we are seeing here looks to be extremely problematic to me. jps (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm not voting keep based on any rationale, but I'm opposed to attempting a second run at deletion so soon after a previous discussion resulted in no consensus. Drop the stick and stop wasting our time. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. There was a large majority vote for keep the last time around and the reasons remain valid. Please stop wasting our time with tendentious nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC).
 * Speedy Keep A vexatious renomination contrary to WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew D. (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So, it was re-created out of process and now it's vexatious to AfD it again? How does that work? Guy (Help!) 02:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The point of SK is to avoid wasting time on such unproductive discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as the first AfD was closed correctly. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a legitimate and sourced list related to the subject of Science and religion. Nominator did not provide any valid (content-based) arguments for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per last nomination, this page is an FYI page and is useful for those interested in the intersection of science and religion, considering that some popular writings have used such info to generate discourse on it.Mayan1990 (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I think Xxanthippe makes a good case. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep! Absolutely NO reason to delete such an article, especially one well-sourced and of good length and relevance like this. In fact, the mere nomination is exposing the agendas of many of the users on this site. Good to see some of us have good sense at least.--Sιgε &#124;д･) 16:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Per WP:DELAFD cited above. Roches (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Andrew D. above: A vexatious renomination contrary to WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." I can't say it any better than that. What I can do is to add WP:SOAPBOX and WP:PUSH as a reminder to why it can be disruptive. Come once, have your say, and let the outcome rest. Personal advocacy and opinion has its place and its time in WP decision-making processes (like a first-time nomination), but repeated pushing of agenda becomes a form of incivility. It is no longer about a decision made in 2007. There has been an update now. A failure to reach a consensus does not constitute an excuse for failing to recognize the support that each side has, and to respect the impasse. Evensteven (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep/snow close per outcome of last week's Articles for deletion/List of Christian Nobel laureates. The nominator should know better than to renominate this a week after the last AFD.  Edgeweyes (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2015 (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.