Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian thinkers in science (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 keep. Clear consensus for keeping the page, although it needs improvement. Aervanath (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Christian thinkers in science
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a weird article. I think the biggest issue is simple notability - it's a questionably encyclopedic article, and whether the intersection is notable enough is dubious. Secondary issues include a major demarcation problem - for most members of this list, Christianity has no part of their notability - and a simple failure to hold up its stated purpose - this is supposedly meant to be a resource to links on science and religion; you'd be hard pressed to find any significant discussion on that in most of the biographies linked. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. If this is not notable, neither is List of atheists in science and technology, List of Jewish scientists and philosophers or List of Muslim scientists. Most of the entries have some reference to the person's religious identity, which is an important biographical detail even if it is not the source of their notability. And if religion plays no part in the notability of scientists, neither does their nationality, or anything else except their field of study. Roches (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Which of the people on here are actually notable as Christian thinkers? While the earlier sections might be workable in that line, certainly by 1401 the list undergoes a shift, and almost no-one from that point on is notable for Christian thinking at all, and it gets far worse as time goes on, with people notable for doing *anything* related to their faith getting very rare. This isn't List of scientists of the Christian faith (Christian Scientists would be something very different), this is meant to be "Christian thinkers". Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy with some sections, but the religion of even some of the later ones is fairly notable too. Lars Levi Laestadius is probably more notable for religion than botany. Pavel Florensky was a theologian. Among the living Francis Collins started the The BioLogos Foundation and several of the books of Owen Gingerich or Alister McGrath involve religion.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete - The first AfD indicates it was initially an article on Catholic scientists, which, honestly, might be notable. But, for all the individual sourcing for each entry, which I admit is at least acceptable, I'm not seeing any evidence that the topic itself is individually notable. Having said all that, it might well be possible that separate articles on Catholic scientists, Eastern Orthodox scientists, Anglican scientists, and so on might conceivably be able to establish separate notability, maybe. Also, in response to the above, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS might seem to apply, and, honestly, the simple declaration that other articles may not have specific notability without support isn't sufficient argument that they are similar. John Carter (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I wouldn't expect the consensus to be much different the second time around on this one. The arguments about inclusion of one name or another are not an argument not to have a list article. The influence on science of religion is a complex one over the years, and it is clear that there have been a number of scientists that self-consciously identify themselves as of a particular religion, and it is clear that this is the subject of multiple independent reliable sources - it is frequently the subject of articles in both theological and secular sources. This isn't some sort of creationists anti-dinosaur nonsense. -- ℕ  ℱ  01:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How does this list add anything that the pre-existing categories don't? I don't see how this is at all educational. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and also curious how it is apparently asserted that WP:NOTABILITY is specifically met for this page. John Carter (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete / Merge Pruned Contents - We already have List of Catholic scientists, which actually has a specific historical context (the Catholic establishment's direct funding and support for certain fields of study going back decades and decades) and a specific limitation in terms of definition (what does or does not make one a 'Catholic' is something you can nail down, at least in part). When you broaden things out more and roughly lump together people regardless of whatever their career was (mixing together botanists and chemists with novelists and philosophers) as well as whatever denomination they were... it's too sketchy. "What is a Christian?" also becomes a major can of worms here-- if I believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed, was a great man, was merely a man, died and has stayed dead, and that God exists but God only passively looks on at world events without intefering, do I still count (using the hypothetical I here)? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * An earlier List of Catholic scientists was deleted when I made this list. It was seen as "too broad" or something, so I created this to be more narrow and made List of Catholic scientists a redirect to an earlier version of this list. The Catholic one did not become an actual list, again, until 28 September 2011‎ when User:Akasseb did so. Before that, and some other events, I would have strongly defended this list. But I admit that the topic might be served by that list, List of Roman Catholic cleric-scientists, List of parson-naturalists, Quakers in science (which I created), List of Christian Nobel laureates, and List of science and religion scholars.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep. I agree with Roches considering that the Muslim list of scientists does not have much detail on the entries and the atheist page all it says is "Living persons in this list are people whose atheism is relevant to their notable activities or public life". It is pretty clear that many of the people on the atheist list are not really using atheism in their lives nor is atheism relevant to their "notable activities", but merely identified as not having belief in God. Of course, just like others have mentioned about "what is a christian?", the same could be said of "what is a Muslim?" or "what is an atheist?". There certainly are different kinds of atheists like secular humanists, nominal atheists and even religious atheists too (see nontheistic religions). These pages look like merely FYI pages of notable scientists who have had a particular worldview and that is it. Mayan1990 (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC).


 * Keep. Excellent list. Well-sourced and coherent. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC).
 * Keep This is indeed an excellent list. It is true that many of the WP articles on these people have little or nothing to say about their Christian thought but that is simply a reflection of our lack of historical perspective. Many of these scientists, even well into the twentieth century, had influential publications concerning their beliefs and the article provides good references. Thincat (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - the list would be better, if it would be limited to thinkers, whose Christian belief was a significant aspect of their work or general bio (verified by reliable sources). Several, especially modern entries, list thinkers, with their Christian belief not even mentioned in their bio article. See List of atheist authors for a better example, which atleast tries to focus on notable entries for both inclusion criteria. If "Christian" is used as trivial filter criteria without context, a list of "Red-haired thinkers" would be equally valid. Having said that, the current list is certainly improvable, and has a lot of encyclopedic and sourced content - a fixable flaw in its criteria is no reason for deletion. A few examples of entries, which don't clarify the significance of the person's Christian belief: Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., Ferid Murad, Don Page, Gerald B. Cleaver among others. GermanJoe (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "- the list would be better, if it would be limited to thinkers, whose Christian belief was a significant aspect of their work or general bio (verified by reliable sources)." That's what it originally was, more or less, look through the history at the versions from 20 November 2005 to December 2010. It has evolved since 2010 and I gathered what was initially wanted, mostly by me but others were involved, was seen as too restrictive. I'd be fine with renaming this list, as it is now, to List of Christians in science and technology as suggested. For more what I intended see my User:T. Anthony/List of Christian thinkers in science.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you have more or less hit the nail on the head here, in a sense. As it stands, there is no easy way to determine either who qualifies as a "scientist" or who qualifies as a "Christian". Also, there is the very real problem that, for instance, a specific individual scientist might be among the more significant scientists associated with Messianic Judaism, and thus in a sense qualify for the list on that basis, while being otherwise comparatively less than truly significant to either Messianic Judaism or whichever "science" he might be affiliated with. Also, honestly, there are any number of individuals who in any field of "science" would reasonably qualify for inclusion on the basis of being active church-goers. On that basis, the list is going to be, basically, unmanageable, until and unless specific additional criteria are added, and it is all but impossible for me to imagine that there will ever be any real consensus regarding those criteria. Also, as stated before, there don't seem to be any specific sources establishing either the specific notability of this topic, or, for that matter, the criteria for inclusion in those undiscovered sources. Categories are another matter entirely. So, for that matter, are memberships in any of the various pontifical commissions for Catholics, or similar groups for other traditions. Now, I can and do see some potential merit and maybe utility to, for instance, List of Christian thinkers in geology, or "biology," or "astronomy," or any other specific disciplines, as opposed to the nebulously-defined "science." But those are other matters entirely. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * At the very least change the name of the article List of Christians in science and technology, please. The curent article title is laughable. jps (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV title and a conjunction of two random categories. There's also the very serious problem of using historical figures to apparently inflate the extent of religious belief in science. Newton is listed even though he refused to take Holy Orders even though it was then mandatory for matriculation from Cambridge. Does that make him a Christian thinker in science? Science, as such, did not even exist in his day: it was natural philosophy. Virtually all the English Enlightenment figures will have had strong religious views, since the Royal Society was built from a core of royalist adherents to Anglicanism, centred on Wadham College, Oxford. This was as much a matter of tradition and politics as of religion. And that's the problem, really - when Hooke stated in 1690 that the fossils in the cliffs on the Isle of Wight were the petrified remains of creatures that no longer walked the earth, he was not making a statement for or against science or creationism, he was merely stating his views based on observation - the existence of God was implicit in contemporary society and there were few, if any, active atheists within the establishment, scientific or otherwise. Now, over 300 years later, science is profoundly different, and the nature of religious dogma in relation to science is also profoundly different. It's almost like a list of scientists who could ride a horse: in the 17th Century everyone could, in the 21st it's much less usual. The inclusion of natural philosophers, proto-scientists and others predating modern scientific thought is fallacious, and there's no obvious way of qualifying the list to make it anything else. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, his obituary noted that Clayton Mordaunt Cracherode (1730–1799) had never sat on a horse, despite being the wealthy son of a general. Not sure if you could get a list out of that. By "everyone" you mean well-off males in the Western world, of course. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: POV issues aside, I'm not seeing the unambiguous, objective, reliably sourced inclusion criteria required by WP:STANDALONE. The lead even states that the "list's purpose is to act as a guide", which is not what a list or any kind of article should be. Kolbasz (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: The list is, per its lead, "limited to those scientists whose Christian beliefs or thoughts, in writing or speaking, are relevant to their notability" (my italics). No, no, that's not a description of a "List of Christian thinkers in science": such a list ought, if anything, to be limited to those scientists whose Christian beliefs or thoughts are relevant to their notability as scientists. Relevant to the science they did. The criteria offered are impossibly loose, and the texts introducing each period (does a list article normally have that much text?) are essay-like and completely POV. Delete per WP:TNT. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC).
 * Keep, but clean up to reflect some valid but non-fatal criticisms made above. I have no doubt the intersection is notable. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-sourced list and i don't find weird article, there been several christians in science and many of them were religious too. the article is well-sourced, and there is several articles has the same topic as List of atheists in science and technology, List of Jewish scientists and philosophers no one has a word to delet these articles. If the users have a problem with title it's could be changed to: List of Christians in science and technology.--Jobas (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree that the name of the title of the article should be changed to List of Christians in science and technology. It would be as generic as the List of Jewish scientists and philosophers or List of Muslim scientists or List of atheists in science and technology. The scope of the article or lead should be adjusted because it is very well sources and of course very informative for people looking into examples of Christians who have made contributions to science. Mayan1990 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would actually suggest starting on smaller, more focused lists first, possibly by period (taking into account JzG's comment above about how recent the use of the term "scientist" is), maybe individual discipline, and possibly denomination/faith tradition. Granted that Catholics are historically probably about 50% of all Christians, and that Catholics are among the most dedicated navel-gazers I have ever seen in terms of academic output (and I am a Catholic), the notability of articles on Catholic scientists might be easier to establish than that for other groups, and they may well be easier to provide the required indicators of notability for. John Carter (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: the criteria for inclusion is too vague and too broad. Praemonitus (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep but MOVE --> List of Christian philosophers and scientists. I see this as more of a companion piece to List of Jewish scientists and philosophers and List of Muslim scientists and philosophers than a counterpoint to List of atheists in science and technology.  That said... I would also move the atheist article and re-work it so it fits better with the others. We need to figure out what the scope of entire set of lists is.  What information are we trying to convey? (I think we want something more defined than simply showing that many scientists were Christian).  Resolve the broader scope issue, and the ill defined inclusion criteria at this list will clarify itself. Blueboar (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't object to a move, but let's keep the philosophers out of it. All those already on the list have some claim to be natural philosophers; one might use that. Get into logic, aesthetics etc, & the list is very deficient. Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Most interesting and informative. Adam Cuerden says: "This is a weird article....Secondary issues include a major demarcation problem ..." It is a confused mess, it shows the diversity of minds and being "Christian" means; there is no way of editing entries in or out that would not be subject to conceptual attack. And that's a feature, not a bug. That's the way reality is and the way such a list must be, and thus it has a salutary effect on the reader. GangofOne (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Scientists are notable for their science. Religious background and profession is a demographic detail that is noted in many biographical works and summaries. Lists collect info. This one has many parallels on WP. Keep them all, or delete them all. Evensteven (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment So far, no one has mentioned the most relevant guideline, the notability criteria for stand-alone lists: a list topic is considered notable if it is discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. I find no shortage of sources discussing it as a list, but are they reliable and independent? It's debatable. Here are some of the ones I found:
 * - has a strongly pro-Christian slant
 * - by “the father of modern creation science,” but consists almost entirely of well-sourced statements by scientists.
 * - self-published, but lists a lot of sources
 * - from a site which consists of many kinds of list of scientist
 * - self-published, mainly quotes from scientists.
 * Do any of those count as reliable and independent? With the exception of the one by "Scientist", they are all pushing a point of view. Ideally, something better should be found. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a somewhat partial and slanted list of the sources used. You could remove all articles that use those sources and the list would remain rather long.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you mean the sources used in the list, I didn't use any of them because (as far as I could tell without examining them exhaustively), none of them provide lists of scientists who are Christians. The sources are for individual scientists, so they don't support notability of the list, as I described above. Instead, I did the best I could to find good sources through Google. I'm already leaning towards keep, and I'd be happy to vote that way if someone could find a better source. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops my mistake, sorry for the misreading.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Being a scien tist who believes in God is not the same as being a Christian thinker in science. I don't see any credible evidence that most of these are considered notable as Christian thinkers - their "Christian thinking" does not, in fact, appear to go beyond mere belief in many cases. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The list has "evolved" over the years. The version I started, and remember working on, was more specific. As late as 2013 pretty much all entries involved people who had done works on religion/science, etc. The list looks to have been retitled List of scientists with Christian faith due to this. And that's probably right. A part of me was sad though, and maybe still is, that the list I really put a lot of work and even pride into will, regardless of what happens, only exist as something on one of my userspace pages. But maybe what I, and a few others, was doing was not appropriate for Wikipedia.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing it's not called List of Christian scientists because it's too much like List of Christian Scientists. But how about List of scientists who are Christians? RockMagnetist(talk) 00:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first nomination, don't delete it. It's well sourced and I did a lot of research on Scientists who were Christian, this article is true and legitimate. Should not be modified/deleted.


 * 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.