Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian Nobel laureates (3rd 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 keep. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  12:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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

This seems... a dubious subject for a list. It's an intersection, combining two subjects, and appears to be using quite a deal of synthesis to make it up, evaluating each of them. That would be fine if the subject were notable, but it really doesn't seem to be, with the only source previously covering it being a single book of trivia and other information about the Nobel Prizes. This does not rise to notability - we require references in multiple reliable sources, after all. I just don't see this article being defensible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: The list is interesting and it is in connection with many researches about on the relationship between faith and science--Dell63 (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: The list's notability is the same about List of Jewish Nobel laureates and List of Muslim Nobel laureates and list of nonreligious Nobel laureates, But no nomination deletion for these articles. the list is well sourced and neutral.
 * And this list is not an original research since been several studies or infortmation about the religions of Nobel prize laureates as the book  100 Years of Nobel Prizes by  Baruch A. Shalev, and cientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States by Harriet Zuckerman, and Nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 to 1990 that done by the University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998, and  Comparative Religion For Dummie by  William P. Lazarus and Mark Sullivan, and  The Nobel Prize: A History of Genius, Controversy, and Prestige by Burton Feldman and others.--Jobas (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Although the lede to this article is not well-sourced, there are, in fact, entire scholarly books that deal with the quesiton of why modern science originated as a Western (i.e. Christian) phenomenon, for example, Toby Huff, The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West. Article lede should be tagged for sourcing and kept. Other scholarly conversations discuss why science continues to flourish in some faith-related cultural areas and not in others.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Although it is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, It would be exceedingly inconsistent to keep the the 3 faith-related lists mentioned above by User:Jobas and the many other articles along the lines of  List of Buddhists "This list includes... people notable in other areas who are publicly Buddhist or who have espoused Buddhism." while deleting this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't see the Christianity and Science argument as at all a good keep argument - the prize list is not limited to science - Literature and Peace Prizes, for instance - and it kind of makes it sound like the list is pushing an agenda, since the percentage of Christians in the Nobel Prize lists is not particularly evidentiary to that argument - and the list itself doesn't have the bias that's being added to it in order to make a notability argument. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Very well sourced and relevant. Nominator's argument is inconsistent. In view of past AfDs, a vexatious nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC).
 * Keep With over 450 sources, this list is well referenced and all the information is easily verifiable. It also seems to meet the purpose of lists, and as others have said, deleting this would be incosistent when other similar lists exist.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 23:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as sources show this is an encyclopedic cross-categorization. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is well-sourced and like others have mentioned, it is a notably studied topic. Relevant to religion and science related articles.Mayan1990 (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic, studied by scholars, relevant to history, including the history of science, and paralleled in lists for other religions. It is this proposal that has a very dubious premise. Evensteven (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep (commenting, because I was asked to). This is a well structured list providing useful analysis of what it clearly a notable subject, the Nobel Prize being the world's supreme international accolade.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Not only because it is hard to argue to delete this one when we have lists for Athesit, Muslim, Jewish laureates, but it seems to pass WP:LISTN. Mario-mardini (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep neutrally worded and this topic is both verifiable and significantly covered in reliable sources: WP:SNOW KEEP. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as properly sourced and notable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the argument made by User:E.M.Gregory. AnupamTalk 23:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nominator might to think about withdrawing this nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC).
 * I don't think it's useful to withdraw. It'll help the page more if it can point to a firm keep instead of a mere no consensus. I'm not sure I agree with the logic put forwards - it still feels like an intersection of two topics, which would be better handled, if encyclopedic, as part of a "List of Nobel Laureates by religious affiliation" or the like, but I do intend to accept the result, whatever happens. I don't think it's likely to be deleted at this point, but I still think it's a useful debate to have, particularly as I'm not sure we've gotten that good of sources out yet. It feels a little like taking trivia, mentioned briefly in books  covering more broad topics - Christianity and Science; statistics about the Nobel Prize; etc, etc - and making it a unit in its own right, and that still feels wrong to me.
 * It does feel like some voters - particularly E.M.Gregory and "per E.M.Gregory" votes - are somewhat explicitly using this to make an argument about Christianity and Science that's not at all supported by the facts (the list includes LITERATURE and PEACE prizes, after all - it's not about the topic it's being claimed to be about, and those are likely to have at least some Western bias when being awarded by a European Foundation, particularly in the early years, and even the science prizes aren't going to have been perfectly awarded. But the list itself doesn't try to make any dodgy analyses, they're being made as part of poor keep arguments, and are a reason to ignore those keeps, not to ignore the other keep arguments. (Mind, I'm going on the argument as written; it may be there's a better argument hiding under it) Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It might be worth considering a merge after this AfD is decided. The biggest drawback about the current organization is that any Nobelists with relatively obscure faiths are left out because separate articles cannot be justified for those faiths. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Rrgarding Hindu/Buddhist lists, give it a few years, there are top scientists/economists/physicians from those backgrounds on Noble probable lists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In response to User:Adam Cuerden's comment, it may seem odd, but when I saw this AFD my mind went exclusively to the medicine/science/economics prizes.  I never gave a moment's thought to the literature or peace prizes.  I read his comment and was momentarily genuinely puzzled, then I realized what he was saying ans asked myself how I could have forgotten those prizes.  And realized that the answer is that in the circles I move in, people stopped taking them seriously - or talking about them - years ago.  To the point where I didn't even think of them when I saw this AFD.  And I suppose that the reason for that is that it has been taken for granted for so long that the lit and peace prized are so thoroughly political, so entirely responsive not merely to culture but to fashions in culture, and have been so since time immemorial that they long ago ceased to be regarded as prizes, within, as I said, the rather limited circles that I move in.  this does not change my overall analysis that this page is notable, and that there are real correlations between cultural groups and participation in the sciences that continue to affect who does cutting-edge work in medicine/economics/and in the sciences.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And that's fair enough, just they are included in the statistics, so it weakens the original argument a fair bit. I don't feel horribly strongly about this list - it seems odd and trivial to me more than harmful, so I'm not going to make a fuss over it being kept, if it is, and I don't imagine it isn't going to be. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2016 (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.