Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian Nobel laureates (4th 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 no consensus. This discussion was previously closed as keep and then reopened for additional discussion. Since that time, I don't think the discussion has progressed any closer to a consensus. With more than three weeks of discussion already, keeping this open longer is unlikely to be productive. In terms of the weight of arguments, I think there is a preponderance in favor of keeping the article; however, I don't think it rises to the level of being clearly for keeping. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

A man's religion has nothing to do with his awards. Christianity discovered none of modern science's achievements, it was peoople who discovered it. Other religions should be spared, as They have very less entries, ranging from 11-193. But, this is a very long list with 427 people. Nobel Prize was originated by a christian person, It is given by two 99% xtian dominated countries, It is mostly given to North Americans and Europeans, majority of whom happens to be christian. Almost, 75% of all winners are christians. So, there's nothing special if a Nobel laureate happens to be christian. It is special, if a non-christian gets this award. Moreover, similar article List of Hindu Nobel laureates was deleted following a discussion eariler. Most wikipedians consented a delete and they showed the reason that a person's religious identity doesn't make any sense to his achievements So, why should this article exist? মাখামাখি (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Subsequent to the 2007 discussion to which you refer, this article has been subject to 3 AFDs (as linked above), all of which had a majority in favour of keep. What has changed since those?  --David Biddulph (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. মাখামাখি (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. মাখামাখি (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 05:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 05:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 7.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 16:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This is the fourth time that this article has been nominated for deletion and yet again, the argument for doing so is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. If it doesn't exist yet, then create it! Simple! This article is well sourced and several academic publications have written on this topic, as evidenced by the abundance of citations in the article. Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, Hindu, and other types of scientist are all worth listing, that's no excuse not to list this. It is of general interest. desmay (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "If it doesn't exist yet, then create it! Simple!" Is it really? The word "yet" is misleading here. Once upon a time there were both an article List of Christian Nobel laureates and an article List of Hindu Nobel laureates. Then, as the outcome of a deletion discussion, both were deleted. Later, both were recreated. The new article List of Christian Nobel laureates was tolerated, but the new List of Hindu Nobel laureates was speedily deleted multiple times per CSD G4: recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. There is no reason to assume that yet another recreation would fare differently. --Lambiam 18:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: This article is very well sourced and definitely meets WP:GNG. It has also survived three previous attempts to delete it, so there appears to be a consensus in favor of keeping it. There is nothing unusual about such an article, as we also have the articles List of Muslim Nobel laureates, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, and List of nonreligious Nobel laureates. If the Hindu article (or a proposed version) is shown to be well-sourced and can meet GNG, than it should also have an article, though that is a separate discussion. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Atheists just want this hidden for no good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.133.175.145 (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Stupid argument. Ajf773 (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. If I understand the nomination correctly – it does not point to any P&Gs to support deletion rationales – the primary argument for deletion is that List of Christian Nobel laureates "is a very long list with 427 people". But that is a matter that can be solved by following WP:SPLITLIST, it is not a reason for deletion. Is "75% of all winners are christians. So, there's nothing special if a Nobel laureate happens to be christian" a secondary deletion argument? If yes, I don't buy it; sources show that this list is a valid, encyclopedic cross-categorization. Sam Sailor 08:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - I must admit that I am intrigued by the argument that scientific research is not informed by the scientist's religion, but I would put that up for community debate in the article's talk page. Not a reason to delete the article (for the 4th time), for reasons stated by most of the voters above. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (Talk&#124;Contribs) 13:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep it and close this AFD.   M A A Z     T A L K   13:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The intersection of nobel status and religion is not defining, although many people who understand the matter assert that Henry Eyring was denied the nobel prize because of his religion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow (reinstate?) lists of Hindu, Buddhist etc equivalent lists. This is a prize of such significance that it is allowed multiple categories and lists, where we would not for lesser prizes.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised at the overwhelming number of Keep !votes, many with quite poor arguments and no sources cited in this AfD. There are obviously many sources in the article, but obviously we need not just verifiability but the notability of this intersection, i.e. sources about this intersection and/or sources which treat this intersection as a group. Pardon me if these are in the article, my connection is bad at the moment. (hence no !vote yet). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 05:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non notable cross categorisation. What use is a whole list dedicated to Nobel laureates who subscribe to one particular religion and all its sub-denominations? Ajf773 (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * comment how many times does this have to go back and forth? The subject is worth keeping and if someone wants articles for other religions they'd be worth having too. desmay (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Many people find this kind of list informative, especially for Peace and Literature prizes.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep it has already survived thrice.  samee  talk 18:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - The keep !votes with no basis in policy/guidelines at all continue... showing how this specific intersection of subjects has been given significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subjects is what we need here. Delete pending that being demonstrated. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 19:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources showing how the specific intersection of science and religion has been given significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subjects:


 * Shalev, Baruch Aba (2003). 100 Years of Nobel Prizes. New Delhi : Atlantic Publishers & Distributors.
 * Zhang, Weijia; Fuller, Robert (May 1998). "Nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 to 1990: Simple statistics for physics teachers". Physics Education.
 * Zuckerman, Harriet (1977). Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. Transaction Publishers.
 * Lazarus, William P.; Sullivan, Mark. (2008). Comparative Religion For Dummies, Wiley Publishing.
 * Feldman, Burton (2001). The Nobel Prize: A History of Genius, Controversy, and Prestige, Arcade Publishing.


 * Though I have access to Zhang & Fuller, I'm limited by Google Books previews for the other 4, though those previews do exist. In one case, there's a bit of oddly done analysis, but for four out of these five, there is nothing resembling significant coverage -- just basic declarations of data/demographics and tangential subjects like, as you've just put it "how the specific intersection of science and religion has been given significant coverage" (which is irrelevant, since this is not about science and religion broadly, but about a specific award and a specific religion's intersection).
 * In Shalev, I see only basic statistics ("About 66% of the Laureates belong to the Christian faith" and data tables). He spends just as much time offering statistics of laureates by astrological sign, so I suppose we should also get on creating list of Scorpio Nobel laureates.
 * In Zhang & Fuller, this is the only relevant line in the text: "Our statistics show that about 60% of the laureates had a Christian background."
 * Zuckerman is the only one approaching decent coverage, and here it is one of many demographics she looks at in the "social origins of laureates" chapter (which spends as much time examining social class, date of emigration, state they live in, etc. Interestingly, it seems like (from what I can gather from the preview) the author uses religion as a defining variable, splitting all American laureates into Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, and looking at other demographic factors in relation to those categories that are taken for granted. This is tangential, but it seems like it's treating Christian/protestant as a stand-in for racial/nationalistic terms (in the sense that "Christian" could, at one point, mean "European people like us" rather than speaking to religious beliefs)). I digress...
 * In Lazarus & Sullivan, the only hits for "Nobel" Google turns up are for Jewish, not Christian laureates.
 * In Feldman, I see some content about the connections between science and religion broadly, in relation to the works of the laureates, but not about the religious demographics of the laureates. As this isn't an article about the intersection of science and religion broadly, but on the particular intersection of Nobel laureates and Christianity, this doesn't seem relevant.
 * Again, limited in my access to some of them, but I don't find these convincing. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 07:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think that list of Scorpio Nobel laureates and Christian Nobel laureates is a fair assessment, as religion has not only more notability value but even more significant is the fact that it has a lot to do with identity (Majority of notable people mention their religion in their biographies, same happens in Wikipedia biographies).   M A A Z     T A L K   19:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your point in general but you're applying your own standard rather than going by Wikipedia's. Whether one part of the intersection is notable or more notable than another isn't relevant. The only thing that's relevant is the coverage of this specific intersection. Whether it has to do with religion, identity, cookies, or magic, it's just about how much coverage it has received. We need in-depth coverage of this intersection, not just some statistical statements. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Linking religions to the receipt of a Nobel award, which has no religious test, is wrong. There is also no real study or scholarship saying that religion has a correlation to or influence on winning a Nobel award.  This list and the others like it look to be pushing arbitrary links as if there is substance behind it, and it is astonishing they have not been deleted earlier. Holbach Girl (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is significant debate over whether religious belief is compatible with scientific work, therefore lists like this are useful. Compiling a list such as this, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, List of Muslim Nobel laureates and List of atheist Nobel laureates is not original research; it's compiling existing research.78.12.28.46 (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL. Any keep !vote should really be showing how this intersection of subjects has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Lots of things are subjectively useful and/or tangential to notable subjects. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 06:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW just to be clear, I have not done the same evaluation of sources for the other articles that I have for this one, but it's almost certain I would support deleting the others as well. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 06:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The arguments so far presented for delete do look quite poor and almost unaware that list is more than just about the sciences (even the nominator had such a limited view). I would have supported a Hindu list too based on the reasons that follow. One big problem here is that none of the delete votes, except one, have even done an attempt at being consistent because none are even proposing the deletion of other parallel lists such as List of nonreligious Nobel laureates, List of Muslim Nobel laureates, and List of Jewish Nobel laureates. The fact that Category:Lists of Nobel laureates by religion exists means that there may be something to this kind of listing. There are other lists such as List of Nobel laureates by country but not one is commenting on that one either.


 * I think we should all keep in mind the complete scope of the list: The Nobel prizes include more than the sciences. The complete set of prizes on the list is: Physics, Chemistry, and Physiology/Medicine, Peace, Literature, and Economics. The sources for the sciences seem to be there but the areas worth emphasizing at this point are the Peace and Literature prizes which have very good links with Christian identity. For instance, Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa are easy examples and Teddy Roosevelt and Jimmy Carter too for their endeavors which eventual won them prizes in some way. In literature, you have T.S. Elliot, Robert Andrews Millikan, and William Daniel Phillips etc who expressed themselves and in some cases reflected their own character or beliefs. Some of their works won them a prize too. Even in the sciences, people upbringing (which includes belief or lack of beliefs in religions) sometimes plays some role along with other things in making them who they are (for instance, Nobel Prize Women in Science: Their Lives, Struggles, and Momentous Discoveries by Sharon Bertsch McGrayne).&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You say that the arguments for delete look quite poor, and then immediately launch into WP:OTHERSTUFF and your own comments about the prizes and religious identity (?) without even addressing notability. Though it shouldn't actually matter for the purpose of this discussion, as I said above, if this is deleted, I would almost certainly support deleting the others in that category. Do you have sources to make an argument that this specific intersection has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject?
 * I'm starting to repeat myself, and don't want to get into badgering territory by responding to every poor keep !vote, but there are just so many of them. So many, in fact, that we might wind up in the unfortunate situation where NOTAVOTE goes out the window (i.e. in theory a single !vote should be able to swing the result away from 50 !votes if the argument is better, but nobody is actually willing to put that into practice unless it's sort of close... not that I can blame them). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: for further discussion

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC) ''I have relisted in part because I realize I am non-neutral and would do better to give an opinion. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * KeepIt's true there is some ambiguity. Indeed, with  every religious or ethnic or political classification, there's a distinction between passive and active adherents, but the characteristic  nonetheless have meaning.  As with all lists and summaries, to find the specifics, one needs to read the articles which should discuss it  more fully than they commonly do. With respect to the general issue of such lists,   I consider these dimensions among the basic ones of human experience, and matters of general public interest appropriate for an encyclopedia--appropriate not just for discussion  within articles, but for organization and systematic access.
 * As for some minor objections: I fail to see why the fact that most of the recipients were in some way Christian makes a list of them invalid. It's a complement to having lists of the others; together, they should cover the area. I think it's been fully demonstrated that the concept has been discussed in the outside sources that were presented above. The GNG in any rate has only limited and artificial applicability to lists, which are a device for classification of articles, not a subject.
 * So far from not having support in policy, I think the deletion would be opposed to basic policy:   I consider it  to be   a matter of avoiding topics where there might be unresolvable controversy and strong emotions, which would be a direct violation of NOT CENSORED. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Although I relisted, I think the consensus was unmistakable. Some but not all similar discussions may have closed otherwise, but that is not evidence this was discussed inadequate or closed incorrectly. I hope that this is, rather, evidence that the consensus might be changing and that we need to reconsider previous deletions. DGG''' ( talk ) 04:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This seems to be an appeal to personal opinion about what aspects of human experience matter (I imagine there's an applicable AADD), an argument that the above sources satisfy GNG (I am surprised to see you say this, having looked at the sources and described them above), and an argument to consider this a purely navigational list (i.e. the sort that GNG wouldn't quite apply to; in that case, it's problematic for other reasons, like those that JzG mentioned on your talk page). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 05:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * DGG, you might want to read WP:NOTAVOTE. ~ Winged Blades Godric 09:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I look at this article and see a vast field of names of people with unsourced claims of their religious affiliation, let alone no sourcing for that affiliation being of any importance to their lives or accomplishments. Some of them are living people and this is completely unacceptable for a WP:BLP but it should also not be acceptable even for the no-longer-living ones. This sort of "my religion is better because it has winners of (unrelated event)" jingoism has to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there are sources for them in each individual article--if not, they need to be found. This is a reason for improvement, not deletion. I do not see the article as opinion about the importance of religion but as plain statements.  DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If we rely on sources from the individuals' articles that verify that they are both Christian and a Nobel Laureate and compile a list of them, we have a textbook case of original research/synth, as what is missing are the sources about that particular intersection of biographical facts which justify a stand-alone list on Wikipedia, apart from editors' own opinions/feelings about what is important. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me this may be a response specifically to the BLP issue raised, in which case my response is irrelevant. If that's the case, disregard. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify: my position is that much of this list appears to fail the test in WP:CAT/R that "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." If we wouldn't allow the religion to be listed as a category for the person, what is the basis for listing it here? Spot-checking the first 20 entries on this list found only four that mention religion in the article and have a religious category on the article (Marconi, Millikan, Hess, and Walton), and even among those four our classification of them here is oversimplified (Marconi was at different times Anglican or Catholic and we only say Catholic here). If this is to be kept at all (not my preference) it must be trimmed back only to those entries that pass CAT/R. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete--Per David and Rhodendrites. ~ Winged Blades Godric 09:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important cultural information for this and other religions also. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC).
 * Delete My reaction to it is the same as that of David Eppstein - it is sorting based on irrelevant criteria, with no better basis than to have a List of blonde Nobel laureates. For some people, religion is an important part of their identity, an influence on their works, but for others it is entirely incidental or altogether nominal, and this grouping seems over-categorization or 'my group has the longest list' tribalism. Agricolae (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Many scientists were and are influenced by their faith in order to pursue the study of science. University of Oxford Professor John Lennox clearly details this, here. Indeed, Alfred North Whitehead summarized this in the following quote: "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver". In the Medieval Era and beyond, to learn about God, people studied two books, the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature--the Christian faith of individuals influenced people to pursue scientific endeavor so they could learn more about God. Individuals commenting here like User:Agricolae and User:Rhododendrites are being disingenuous in their comments by setting up strawman arguments with "List of blonde Nobel laureates" and "List of Scorpio Nobel laureates" and I think they know that. While faith has influenced individuals to pursue science, their hair color or astrological sign does not. Besides that, WP:OTHERSTUFF does not exist. In fact, the whole academic field of science and religion is dedicated to studying this relationship, while obviously no such field exists for the strawman fields listed by these two users. The article should definitely be kept without a doubt. -- A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 17:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Apart from your thoughts about the connection between science and religion (science and religion is not up for deletion, nor challenged for its notability), what is your policy-based reason for keeping this particular article? In the source context in which I made the scorpio analogy, there was just as much coverage of astrological signs in relation to Nobel prizes as there was this subject. Since we have policies about verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research, what editors think about the subject is irrelevant and all that matters is the source coverage of it (of this specific intersection of subjects, not of science and religion broadly). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There are people who for whom, as you say, religion significantly influences their decisions and actions, for whom it represents to them a significant aspect of their identity, and there are people for whom this is not the case. There are also people whose astrological sign influences their decisions and actions, for whom it represents to them a significant aspect of their identity, and there are those for whom it doesn't. Viewed from the other perspective, there are Noble laureates who pursued medicine or peace because of their religion, and there are also laureates who pursued medicine or peace simply because they witnessed people dying in horrible ways.  There are people who pursue science simply because they like science, people who pursue peace because they think it is a good thing for there to be more of, or for other reasons entirely.  Did Theodore Roosevelt pursue Russian-Japanese peace because of his religion, or because it would advance the geo-political goals of the United States?  Did Malala pursue the education of females because she was Muslim, or because she saw an inherent unfairness in her society (and later, because she didn't appreciate getting shot in the head)?  How about Al Gore and Linus Pauling - maybe, just maybe, they were primarily influenced by the end of the world being a bad thing, worth avoiding independent of what religion you practice or don't. People have a range of motivations for the choices they make and the careers they pursue, from religion to personal experience to simple personal preference.  Your argument that 'because religion is an important motivating factor for some people, the religion of everyone is important and relevant' is unsupportable, because for many of them it's not. Agricolae (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, as there is no category for Nobel prises in Religion, the recipients religion is of no more relevance than eye colour or skin tone. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: In agreement with the other comments here about faith historically encouraging scientific endeavor (e.g. Isaac Newton's Christian faith compelling him to study physics ), this topic passes WP:GNG, with reliable sources discussing it, such as the scholarly text 100 Years of Nobel Prizes. It seems that despite two well-done closes on this 4th Nomination AfD alone, a minority of users here have fought to reverse the close (twice) in order to reach a different outcome ( & ). The first close (and second) should be respected and the sysop closing this should take into account the wider consensus to keep this article established in the AfDs before this. I also find it amusing that despite the existence of List of Muslim Nobel laureates, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, and List of nonreligious Nobel laureates, people only seem to be triggered by the article about Christian Nobel laureates. Carajou (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Again with the same argument - some individuals have been inspired by their faith to do what they do, so let's just go ahead and conclude that all Christians are so influenced, and therefore that all Christians are fundamentally different in a noteworthy way in all of their endeavors. You hear gridiron football athletes thanking God for letting them beat the Christians on the other team often enough that you could certainly have List of Christian wide receivers were you to apply the same logic across the board.  There is no policy that supports these assumptions, extrapolating as they do from the specific to the general, that underlie the page - it is WP:SYNTH/WP:NOR, unless you have a specific citation that each individual listed was personally so inspired, and even then I question its value.  The same argument does indeed apply to the other Nobel-by-religion pages, just as it has already been applied with extreme prejudice to the Hindu page.  Bringing up the others is just WP:OTHERSTUFF, not evidence of the anti-Christian cabal. Agricolae (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Many of the -keep- votes argue that we should have a page on Relationship between religion and science and I agree. None of those -keep- voters have made a case for a list page implying a correlation between belonging to a religion and achieving a Nobel prize. The sysops should take that into account.  They should also look at  Holbach Girl (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research and difficult to verify. Also see Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (3rd nomination) and Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination). Religious people seem to have a prosecution complex. This is not about christianity, lists of atheist and hindu nobel laureates were deleted in the past. This is not picking on christians.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I must say this AFD is becoming quite hysterical. Nominated 4th time. Now on the 4th attempt, closed twice as keep and re-opened twice. Its like; until it won't be deleted by more delete:keep ratio (which won't happen anyways), it may continue to be relisted. There is nothing wrong with these kind of articles as this article is notable as there are so many references, and in today's world, religion is associated with both notability and identity just like nationality.   M A A Z     T A L K   16:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hysterical indeed. The keep !votes with no basis in policy/guidelines just keep coming. Then bolstered by meta comments about how strong the keep arguments have been. It is !vote because it is not a vote. It is based on strength of argument. Granted, most admins have a hard time closing against the majority, but that's the way it's supposed to work in practice anyway. We'll see, I guess. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 23:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to remind everyone that the list of Nobel prizes are not just about the sciences, the Peace and Literature prizes are part of the picture too. I do find the references mentioned earlier in the discussion quite interesting since they do discuss the correlation of religion and the Nobel laureates (which is what the list is about - people who happen to have a particular ultimate worldview), not about causation. So it has notability already because of the sources clearly discuss such an intersection of both in terms of correlations. It is not like editors are manually connecting the two variables, the sources do that connecting themselves and even do some analysis of the correlations to some extent. I don't think anyone here is saying that being a religious person or not will lead to any Nobel prize (most people on earth will not earn a Nobel prize). Causation and correlation are two different things and all the lists of the same nature seem to just make observations on correlations, not discuss causation for people becoming a laureate. Causes are too complex for becoming a laureate - including serendipity being an important factor, but causations are not what lists do. Lists are not really arguments for causation of anything, they merely are correlations discussed in sources (like the ones above do). Just a few thoughts.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The intersection of religion and accomplishments such as winning the Nobel Prize has cultural significance.   While it may be worthwhile to merge all Lists of <insert religious beliefs here> Nobel laureates into one, that's not what is proprosed here.  It doesn't make sense to delete this one without proposing to delete them all (or handle them all consistently in some other way).  TimBuck2 (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Re "It doesn't make sense to delete this one without proposing to delete them all": others have been deleted before; see, e.g., the links given by Vinegarymass911 barely two comments above yours. (But also, your argument is WP:WAX, to be avoided in AfDs.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that others have been deleted before doesn't mean that I agree with those deletions. TimBuck2 (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, but it invalidates your argument that this deletion would inappropriately single one of them out and keep the others. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, of course it doesn't.  The fact is that there are others that haven't been deleted and aren't nominated for deletion.  It is inappropriate to single out this one for deletion but not those ones.  TimBuck2 (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. The intersection of religion and specifically getting a Nobel prize doens't appear to be something treated by sources as something meeting WP:GNG (or specifically WP:LISTN) beyond basic demographics. The keep votes so far have been fairly superficial and not grounded in policy by typically waxing about the importance of religion influencing science. That's tangential to this AfD and more appropriate for broader science and religion article treatments. This is a fairly weak X of Y classification in violation of WP:NOTDIR policy. Grounding in policy is ultimately what decides if this stays or goes (not WP:OTHERSTUFF), and I haven't seen anything that really supports keeping it yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. An arbitrary and unencyclopaedic selection based on two randomly-chosen and otherwise unrelated criteria, the absolute essence of WP:SYNTH; we might as well have List of dyslexic ski champions or List of red-haired estate agents or List of octogenarian tiddlywinks instructors. Nothing reliably suggests that being or not being Christian (or belonging or not belonging to any any other religion or irrational belief system, or to no irrational belief system at all) has any effect on a person's ability to do useful science or write a good book or work towards peace or whatever it might be. Delete this, and if there are others like it, then delete them too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is no more our job to try to demonstrate correlation than causation. It is only in a small number of cases that the sources are making the connection between a specific listed person's religion and their accomplishments as a laureate.  In all the other cases (the majority) the editors are indeed the ones connecting the two variables for each specific individual, attributing significance to what may be just be coincidence. This isn't what editors should be doing, yet it is the central operating principle of this page and the others like it. Agricolae (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2018 (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.