Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian thinkers in science


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes. Non-admin closure. Deor 00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Christian thinkers in science

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * WP:POINT - This page advocates a Christian view that tries to push a point, by listing a great number of (important) scientists and then noting they were all Christian.
 * The point that the list tries to make can best be viewed in the context of the modern creationism debate, where an argument is that religion, and Christianity in particular is incompatible with science. This list tries to push the contrary POV. Regardless of the truth or untruth of that argument, it does try to push a POV, which is not allowed.
 * Note that this list cannot be rewritten from a neutral point of view, as its violation of WP:POINT is inherent to the topic and format. A list does not allow arguments in favour and against, and critical discussion of the relationship between religion and science. Articles like "Relationship between religion and science" are to describe that topic.


 * Redundancy. The vast majority of pre-modern Western thinkers, even those who were credited with the start of non-Christian thought, were Christian. In this context, this list is redundant with many of the historical lists in lists of philosophers, as this list is a (POV) excerpt of the other. Note that this list cannot be changed to be not redundant - if anything, the addition of more names could make it more redundant. And, in its alleged role to examine the relationship between religion and science, it is redundant to "Relationship between religion and science", and fundamentally flawed as the list format does not allow for any discussion.
 * WP:NOT. If we establish the above two points of point of view pushing and redundancy, and their inevitability given the topic, it follows that this list fails the inclusion criteria for lists as much as "List of scientists with blue eyes" does.

As a last note, many of the sources used in this article could be moved to the article mentioned several times in the above deletion reasoning. User:Krator (t c) 15:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This list is based on "List of avowed Christians in science", an article that was previously nominated for deletion. That debate reached no consensus to delete, and defaulted to keep. That article was largely based on "List of Catholic scientists", an article that was nominated for deletion, and deleted previously. User:Krator (t c) 15:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Having read the article, which is well sourced, I disagree with the assertion that it's promoting an agenda. Mandsford 16:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; To me this isn't just a random cross-categorization listing. There's a historical philosophical conflict between western science and Christianity that needs to be documented. So I agree with Mandsford. &mdash; RJH (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree with both of your arguments, but I do not see how the conclusion that follows from them is keep. The area of discussion is certainly valid, and the article meets the verifiability criteria. However, it is impossible to discuss the topic in an NPOV way in the format of a list (see above). Secondly, I would like to ask User:Mandsford for his reasons why it is not promoting an agenda. I found the arguments I wrote down at the start of this deletion discussion quite logical, and I am always interested in the arguments of the other side. Note that I am not nominating this article out of some grudge against Christian scientists - I simply think it is the wrong way to discuss the topic, because it is a POV and redundant way. I would be more than willing to retract the nomination, if presented with a clear argument against my point. User:Krator (t c) 16:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you really wanted to be a stickler for neutrality, you could rename it to Thinkers in science and christianity, though I'd guess the subsets of non-christian people being both notable in science and christian theology is fairly small.--victor falk 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What I am saying then is that I disagree with the criteria given for deletion, especially with regard to WP:NOT. Hence I can neither express an opinion to delete nor to leave it at only a comment. I'm also not especially interested in a debate on the matter: the Admin can agree with my opinion or ignore it. &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Before seeing the list, I thought "another crufty list of "people with religion X and occupation Y"". But this is most definitely not. For one thing, it says it is "strictly limited to scientists who also contributed to Christian theology or religious thinking". Of course it can be interpreted as some as "look at how many great christian scientists there are", just as some could point at list of french napoleonic marshals and say "look at how many great French military geniuses there are!", but that's not the point of neither list. Second, it is a very good one at that; I'd rate it at least B-class. Third, that the content is overlapping with articles such as "Relationship between religion and science" is moot. It is a list, ie a different way of presenting that same content. "The medium is the message".--victor falk 16:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I thought this was actually quite a good example of a style of article I dislike - the list. It is niether just a list of scientists who were nominally Christian nor is it a list only of those with orthodox views (i.e. it contains heretical thinkers such as Bruno) but an informative list of people who contributed to both Christian theology and Western science. I actually enjoyed reading it and learned a little bit as well. Nick Connolly 18:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is probably one of the best list articles I've seen here - it's well sourced and organized, and has a specific guideline as to whom should be included on it. I don't see the WP:POINT the nominator expresses, personally. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I too anticipated voting delete when I read the title but having seen the page it seems like a good addition to WP. JJL 23:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing nom. Obviously no consensus to delete. The fact that the list looks good and meets WP:V seems to thwart my deletion proposal in many people's eyes. I will abide by that, though do not agree - no one has actually responded to any of my concerns for deletion, something I dislike. User:Krator (t c) 23:29, 29 October 2007 (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.