Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (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 delete. Strong arguments have been made on both sides - there were too main arguments for deletion: (1) originial research and (2) non-notable intersection. As to (1), the sourcing seems to be of a reasonable standard and given that all entries can be sourced to confirm (a) their membership of the Royal Society and (b) that they are Jewish (and those without such sources removed), that criticism seems to be one that either has been or can be addressed - especially were a consistent definition of "Jewishness" used. However those arguing to keep this article have failed respond to the second concern - that this is not a non-notable intersection. Without convincing explanation as to why there is something specifically significant about members of the Society being Jewish, which neither the article nor those wishing the article kept address, this is no more suitable a list that one containing "red haired" or "bearded" members of the Royal Society. WjBscribe 18:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society
Unfortunately, there is a evidence that a handful of users were directed to this afd by an email canvassing campaign directed towards inclusionists. As to not single anyone out, I'll keep details light until closure. Bulldog123 21:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC) "the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of all Wikipedia; therefore, it's important to know whether someone is actively soliciting others from a non-neutral location to discuss. Such contributors are not prohibited from commenting, but it's important for the closing administrator or bureaucrat to know how representative the participants are of Wikipedians generally."
 * I don't understand this. Suppose some people did have their attention drawn - by either 'side' - to this discussion, what happened to WP:AGF? If they give their comments and arguments, aren't they as good as everybody else's? Bulldog123, you yourself don't seem to keen (or willing) to let other people's discussion resolve this issue without incessantly adding your own comments - let's just let the people speak, they don't need you (or me) to shepherd them.--Smerus 21:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CANVASS prohibits selective canvassing. WP:AGF doesn't apply when faith has been numerously broken before. This is a discussion, so if I didn't question people's comments, an AFD would be completely worthless. It's even more warranted when the same questions keep being brought up that have been answered in the nomination rationale such as "why is this up for a 3rd AFD?" For details: Bulldog123 00:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Per Deletion review/Log/2007 May 31, the previous afds on this list were vote-stacked by a group of sockpuppets, user(s) who created and maintained the list. They ended in "no consensus" instead of "delete" -likely srongly because of the stacking. To repeat the arguments cast in the nominations: this list is an highly unusual intersection of ethnicity. There is no parent list such as List of Fellows of the Royal Society, though there is a category. However, any divisions by ethnicity in category form would be immediately met with WP:OCAT, and so the list, especially given the hundreds and hundreds of people that fit the parent list, makes no sense, and can easily be used as an excuse to create dozens and dozens of other ethnicity subdivisions completely unnecessarily. Included is a sub-article created by the puppets - List of Jewish Fellows of the British Academy - single contribution. Also plagued by original research - contentious sourcing. Non-notable intersection, agenda-oriented. See the proposal Overlistification Bulldog123 05:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom, for all reasons given on the other nominations and above Bulldog123 05:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.  -- Bulldog123 05:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * no it hasn't - not when I looked just now, anyway.--Smerus 11:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Much as I hate to just say this, Delete per nom. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 06:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful list for me. --Dezidor 10:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please reference WP:USEFUL. Thank you. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 16:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That essay is not useful. It´s better idea to delete essays like that one than useful article where is no problem with sources. --Dezidor 18:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sourcing doesn't matter in this case. Any list, no matter how ridiculous, can be sourced by something. Actually there is a problem with sources on here anyway; many that are linked are either completely unverifiable or straight-up unreliable. Further, useful to you doesn't mean useful to everyone. I'm sure there are many lists that I would find useful that you wouldn't. There are even lists that everyone would find useful but that aren't worthy of wikipedia. For example, a list of cheap current-model laptop computers by price.  Bulldog123 18:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ...it's not? Seems to have some pretty useful information - particularly, the illogic behind the fallacy of such arguments. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete* I agree with BullDog, WP:OR and sockpuppet stacking?  It's too much considering that the list isn't that useful. - Feydakin 22:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I consider this among the better sourced lists of this type--the repeated questioning seems to have done some good. Now that there are references, readers can decide on the reliability. DGG 03:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My !vote stands, but given circumstances (it's better referenced now, and I didn't see a single red link on here), I'm thinking this is better served by a category. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 20:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason there is no red link (apparently it was almost nothing but red links when it was first made, given comments on the previous AFDs) was because one of the socks spent most of their time making stub articles for all the red links. Usually copying them from Who's who. It's possible some are even copyright violations. Here's an example: Franz Sondheimer. In reality, some of these articles might fail professor-notability standards and should be considered for deletion themselves. As a category, of course, it would be probably speedied as an obvious WP:OCAT violation. Bulldog123 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Even though Overlistification is not yet policy, it discusses two problems this list has; intersection by race, beliefs, ethnicity, and religion; and an agenda-oriented topic. This should be deleted, well sourced or not. I wonder if we can get through this AFD without the usual accusations that are often made in these type of AFDs? Masaruemoto 04:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm neutral on most lists and on what to do with them, but this doesn't work as a stand-alone article. Why separate people in this way? It is not for wikipedia. Horvat Den 05:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 10:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Why do we need a list of Jewish members of the Royal Society? Long lists of {religion} members of {organization} are not something Wikipedia needs, short of some justification in the specific sense.--Prosfilaes 12:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Question and comment were Jews ever excluded from membership in the Royal Society? I couldn't tell. If so, perhaps there is some merit in an article; if however, they are not different in this regard than Scots, Swedes, Methodists, Quakers, etc., this has gotta go as trivial intersection. Carlossuarez46 22:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as my research into your question shows, there is no evidence that the Royal Society ever excluded any ethnic or religious group from being a member. Bulldog123 14:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any either, so Delete as invalid intersection as per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * These conclusions would appear to be incorrect. See my comment below.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 23:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your conclusions are textbook original research, unsupported by a shred of evidence. Using the logic you present, the reason there haven't been many significant African-American faculty members at MIT is because of slavery a century ago. It doesn't work that way. Bulldog123 23:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG, and since after this many afds, I suspect systematic or worse, unsystematic bias, give it a break.--Buridan 13:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand why there have been this many afds, then you have not read the nomination rationale, because I explained pretty thoroughly why that is there. And secondly, please do not make WP:POINT !votes as you have here. "It's sourced" is not a valid argument for keeping anything. And lecturing people to "give it a break" is not helpful either. Bulldog123 14:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, 'nominated before and lost' is not valid criteria for nomination either. your other points are also not pertinent.  --Buridan 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but "nominated and lost" isn't why it's relisted. Bulldog123 08:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was asked by Lisa Budd to comment on this AFD; otherwise, I would never have noticed it, since I am not maintaining a watchlist.
 * This nomination is a perfect example of the ugliness that has driven me away from major participation in Wikipedia. After the previous disputes about this article, which focused mainly on questions about citation, and even though I had no particular interest in the topic, I spent 40-60 hours finding citations for the various members in the list. And while I usually try to extend an assumption of good faith, it is difficult for me to see why the effort to delete this article should be seen as any less "agenda-oriented" than the effort to preserve it.
 * To address the arguments of the same person who calls the article "agenda-oriented":
 * "There is no parent list such as List of Fellows of the Royal Society, though there is a category." Unlike simple membership in the Royal Society (which is extremely easy to determine) the other criterion here - being Jewish - is relatively difficult to cite for. Hence, anything involving such a consideration is difficult to maintain as a category. Now that the citation work has been done it is relatively easy to maintain it as a list. In any case, though, in the earlier dispute that largely drove me away from active participation - the discussion of List of songs containing covert references to real musicians at Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15 - I was informed in no uncertain terms that the presence or absence of other articles is beside the point. If it is not a valid consideration for preserving an article, then clearly it cannot be a valid consideration for deleting one.
 * "…contentious sourcing… there is a problem with sources on here anyway; many that are linked are either completely unverifiable or straight-up unreliable". Since not one example is given of poor sourcing, this remark is nothing but an irrelevant slap; since I'm the person who did most of the sourcing, it's a slap I take personally.
 * "…might fail professor-notability standards": Oh, please. A member of the Royal Society who doesn't qualify as notable? That's like talking about non-notable winners of the Oscar for Best Actor or non-notable foreign ministers.
 * I don't have any strong feeling on whether this list is "useful", which is always a subjective criterion. On a different subjective criterion, I personally find it mildly interesting, because it is remarkable that so many people from a relatively small ethnic group have achieved such a distinction. It is certainly of interest to a number of people, it is certainly verifiable, and as far as I can tell, it is at worst harmless (unlike any number of poorly cited, inaccurate, or clearly non-notable articles, which is where I think we should be focusing AFD effort).
 * However, I think that in general, in the interests of community and organization, we should not be purging well-cited, arguably encyclopedic articles into which a large number of people have put a large amount of work. Wiki is not paper. Removing harmless articles alienates active participants in Wikipedia for no meaningful gain. It has largely alienated me. - Jmabel | Talk 19:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Besides being a non-notable intersection, Jmabel's comment has convinced me that this is largely original research: attesting some sort of Jewishness for an individual on the list would be appropriate of the type of research that goes into any biography, but putting them all together like this is OR by synthesis. In addition, putting this information on individual biographies would allow us to include it only where it made some notable difference to their lives, and would allow us to distinguish people Jewish by faith, by ethnicity, or by being called Jewish by others when they made no claim of it or denied it themselves; listing them like this obscures these important differences. —David Eppstein 20:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jmabel, whose remarks I find well reasoned and meritorious. The "sole ethnicity" argument (i.e. "why Jews" and not Scots, Swedes, Methodists, Quakers... as noted in a previous comment here) is in itself no reason for deletion - by all means, let other similarly relevant lists be created. As for the absence of a "parent list" page, i.e. List of Fellows of the Royal Society, this one may well serve as its core content and other editors are welcome to add the non-Jews ad lib. Membership in the Royal Society in itself might well be considered evidence of notability. As for Jews being "singled out" for putative interest: one need only look at the number and nature of questions about Jews directed at the Humanities Reference Desk, let alone world current events and not to mention 20th century history, to form an impression that this particular ethnic group receives attention (wholesome and otherwise) beyond its numbers in the global population and sparking consequent interest that may be served by information loci in Wikipedia such as this and similar lists. The page is adequately encyclopedic; let's not destroy an existing source of information. -- Deborahjay 21:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I read your comment and can't find your reason for retention. So far, all the keep !votes look like attempts to push this into no consensus rather than actually arguing to keep the list for its own merits. The only real thing I got from JMabel's remarks is that he is not happy seeing a list he spent a long time sourcing go (and since it is "harmless" it shouldn't go). I for one am not going to support the creation of List of Scottish Fellows of the Royal Society, List of Methodist Fellows of the Royal Society, List of Quaker Fellows of the Royal Society purely because of "it's harmless" and "i like it" arguments for keeping this list. Nobody has made a single argument supporting a documented significant article-worthy connection between Jewish people (or any ethnicity) and the Fellows of the Royal Society. No one has thought about the fact that keeping this list completely justifies people to make ethnicity/religious divisions for winners of Darwin Medal, Edison Medal, Gabor Medal...etc. "Jews get a lot of attention so this list if fine" is most certainly not a stronger argument that "This is the only ethnicity division of its kind" There is absolutely no proof this list has any encyclopedic value. Bulldog123 21:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Only serves to reinforce stereotypes. Why would religion be relevant for Royal Society membership? JFW | T@lk  22:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The people and the institution they belong to are notable. If some one wants to do a list of List of Scottish Fellows of the Royal Society, List of Methodist Fellows of the Royal Society, List of Quaker Fellows of the Royal Society, etc. let them do so if they are properly sourced and referenced as is the present one. Religion is not relevant for RS membership as far as I know - but so what? Nationality, religion and/or ethnicity of its members may still be of legitimate encyclopaedic interest. As this is 3rd time round, I get the feeling the nominator has a bee in his bonnet which is rather more substantial than his concern for WP standards. --Smerus 23:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. A "bee in my bonnet"? Bulldog123 23:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, being a generous sort of guy, I excuse you. But I still vote for 'keep'. Regards, --Smerus 07:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You provide an excellent argument here for the inclusion of the missing parent list, List of Fellows of the Royal Society, but no argument beyond WP:INTERESTING for a pared list based on this one trait (or any other trait, for that matter). The individual articles each have the sourced information that these people are Jewish, right, so no real information is lost in deletion. &mdash; Scientizzle 23:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Given that Jews were expelled from England in 1290, an edict which was only overturned in 1656 (Edict of Expulsion), and that the Royal Academy was founded in 1660, it is noteworthy that it took roughly 170 years for a Jew to be admitted to the Royal Society in 1828. So, it certainly does appear that this list has historic value.  I would similarly support such a list for any other group that has a similar history of religious or ethnic persecution in England.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 23:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources to conclude your statement has any relevance? Or could it simply be that there were very few Jews in Great Britain before 1828? Otherwise your conclusions are textbook original research Bulldog123 23:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not an article, so WP:NOR has no relevance. I am commenting solely about notability.  And for that matter, Jews were only allowed to become naturalized British citizens in 1753 (Jew Bill of 1753).  There is no doubt Britain has a rich history of antisemitism, which further increases the notability of this article.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 23:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you are justifying the list on your original research into the subject, assuming that the reason it took so long for a Jewish person to be inducted had to be because of anti-semitism and not simply because of a small population, or a population at that time not interested in those professions. The once-presence of anti-semitism does not justify every intersection available with the Jewish ethnicity. So because the US has rampant homophobia it is fine to make divisions of award winners by their sexuality? That doesn't make sense. Bulldog123 00:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have conducted no original research on this topic. You are raising a red herring.  (I'll also suggest you brush up on WP:Civil.)  I am simply commenting that I believe the article is notable, based on well documented historic events.  And yes, had the U.S. expelled homosexuals for several hundred years and then denied them citizenship, I would certainly support material documenting their eventual inclusion into mainstream institutions.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 00:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For the third time, you have no documented proof that it took so many years for a Jew to be a member because of anti-semitism. Which for the thrid time, means you are relying on your personal view on it. I'm sorry I have to say this but the rationale that because Jews were once expelled in Britain, everything merits a division based on their ethnicity seems utterly ridiculous to me. I already gave you the example of MIT, your school, above. You're also using a straw-man fallacy, because "inclusion into mainstream institutions" is not equivalent to "division by awards." Bulldog123 00:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Bulldog, you'll have to accept that I think you are simply wrong, as are your arguments. Regardless, I deem this article as notable.  The purpose of these discussions is to gather differing opinions and I have offered mine, along with my underlying rationale.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 00:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * RandomHumanoid, it's fine you disagree but I would really like it better if the rationale made a little bit more sense. Either you're just not thinking about it or you haven't explained it well enough. Because right now, it seems to be that slavery and persecution would justify an intersection by nearly all ethnicities. What I'm looking for is a really convincing argument to make me rethink deletion. But unfortunately, the more keep !votes I see, the more I feel deletion is completely warranted. Bulldog123 00:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My intent is not to "convince" you of anything. (In the rare cases where that happens, all the better.)  Again, I think you need to review WP:Civil.  Your tone is needlessly dismissive and provocative, and that rarely lends itself to productive discussion.  You are also violating WP:AGF in your original research (WP:OR) theorizing about the outcome of previous AfDs. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 01:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok look. Let's not argue here anymore. If you want to get into specifics we can just talk on our userpages. Bulldog123 01:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is absurd - no religious or ethnic list is more carefully referenced and few deal with such notable people. More, if some body was born as a Jew, than this is a fact, and facts are for Wikipedia and not for personal interpretation.--Gilisa 06:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That this is the bestest most sourced list ever doesn't mean it's appropriate for inclusion in this manner. Nobody is disputing that these people are Jewish here (as far as I can tell), but that a list based on a single aspect of a person, with no logical connection towards the obvious parent list, is an unecyclopedic breakdown of trivial or irrelevant information. &mdash; Scientizzle 23:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note Never has there been any suggestions of "removing" these people from their Fellowship or Jewish categories or other lists like it, so what relevance your last sentence has, I don't know. Perhaps this comment may shed some light on the ambiguousness of the above comment:   "I have no real objection for deleting these article- but I vote on the opposite since I think that too many deletions of Jewish categories already been made ."  Bulldog123 03:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: it seems to me that the term "original research" in its disparaging sense is being stretched here beyond all reason. The original reason for the rule against original research was to keep crackpot science out of Wikipedia. Its scope has been gradually extended, but some seem to wish to bring it to the point where it might be called the "no research" rule. Any decent article will contain some synthesis. Even simply juxtaposing quoted passages from more than one source constitutes a synthesis of sorts. Ans writing a useful encyclopedia requires judgment. May I strongly urge upon all concerned that you read (Center for History and New Media)? (The site in question sometimes has some access problems, but retry a couple of times and you should be able to see it. Probably the best external article about Wikipedia I've ever read.) - Jmabel | Talk 22:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply This is in part true. People are over-using the phrase "original research" often harping on its meaning towards the way participants act and not on how it applies to article-creation. In a very similar way, you made the comment " it is difficult for me to see why the effort to delete this article should be seen as any less "agenda-oriented" than the effort to preserve it." Here you're not following your own advice. Commenting on "agenda-oriented" participants instead of "agenda-oriented" article-creation. However, the justification for the creation of a list cannot be original research. For example, I can't say "I'm going to make List of African-American billionaries and then justify it by saying slavery is obviously the cause of the small amount of billionaires, making this notable" in the same way as RandomHumanoid suggested "Anti-semitism is clearly the cause for the delay in accepting a Jewish member, making this notable." WP:NOR is completely over-used and misunderstood, but that discussion is not very pertinent here. Bulldog123 04:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Bulldog, please do not put a statement between quotation marks that I have not said and attribute it to me.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 07:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I explicitly put "in the same way as RandomHumanoid suggested." Not that you said it.Bulldog123 07:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I keep requesting that you review WP:CIVIL, now I'll suggest that you read Quotation marks.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 07:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussions are not overseen by the manual of style. At this point you might as well stop giving references to user conduct guidelines and instead focus on strengthening your arguments. It's really not helping and wasting text. Bulldog123 07:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep We have plenty of other such lists at Category:Lists of American people by ethnic or national origin. The fact is different ethnicities excel in different areas, Jews in the sciences, classical music and in business, people of African descent in sports and popular music, Germans and Russians in classical music, Italians and French in painting and cuisine etc. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is evidence List of French painters passes notability, there is no evidence List of French painters on the list of 100 greatest painters of all time does. Apply the same thing here. Bulldog123 04:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Comment, Lets see that list of 100 of the greatest painters of all time, I'll bet there are an awful lot of French painters on that list, what's the point? This list is certainly worth keeping. Modernist 05:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that there is no evidence the latter list passes notability...as I said. And pray tell, what is your reason for keeping this list? It might be helpful to comment on this list instead of on the French example. Bulldog123 05:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Gustav von Humpelschmumpel Mad Jack 07:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment every person on the list has a page in Wikipedia, no red ink, the list is exceedingly well referenced, per Jmabel, see above, - my original comment speaks for itself. Modernist 14:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lists of people based on religion is not notable when religion is not part of their notability -- Steve Hart 16:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Jewish people are an ethnic group and not only a religion. And there is no need to prove any relation of their ethnic origin to their notability. Actually, when it come to Jews there is a grown number of theories that suggests a genetic contribution (others suggests cultural contribution even when it comes to assimilated Jews), but we are not dealing with this. Being Jewish that live in the USA is different from being French that live in the USA because of the different history that these two groups have. Any ways, facts are for mentioning, and I can’t see how mentioning some one Jewishness damaging the Wikipedia standards of quality.--Gilisa 05:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Everyone has heard the "Jewish is an ethnic group" excuse, but it doesn't matter here. Whether an ethnic group, a religious group, a sexuality...this division is a random synthesis. Detailed at the proposal Overlistification. Despite what some have been saying, deleting this list doesn't lose any information, as all these people are settled nicely in Fellowship and Jewish categories as well as numerous Jewish lists. Repeating "do not remove good informaion" isn't valid here. Bulldog123 07:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It seems suspicious that this is the only list of its kind. I strongly suggest that List of Members of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities and List of Jewish members of Academies of Sciences, Humanities or Engineering (the only other lists of society members I was able to find, in fact) be included in this nomination. --Eliyak T · C 04:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:SYNTH is prohibited by our rules here.    MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 07:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment  Dear,  MortonDevonshire please explain us why do you see the list of Jewish fellows of the Royal Society  as having position, and what is the position you think it takes. I have the impression that you involve here your subjective opinions. any ways, to many deletions of Jewish categories already been made (regarding your claim, these for itself could be look as a bias) and I don't think that another one is needed, nor that these list taking any offensive position-if you think it is, you  must explain it.--Gilisa 05:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. To keep a list because it is sourced is just as improper as to delete a list because it is unsourced. --Tellerman 07:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Jmabel. Dahn 11:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Jmabel. IPSOS (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to the two comments above, it may be better to keep because of the merit of the list than the popularity of one of the keepers. In other words, don't keep just because your wiki-friend wants to keep it. Bulldog123 07:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is very appropriate that we should have articles for 99% of the Fellows of the Royal Society, and each article would of course include their ethnicity so this list is merely one representation of that information, and it is very well cited. The reason there is no parent list is because it would be too large, hence this sub-list. John Vandenberg 13:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that last point doesn't make sense -- where a list is too large and is broken down in to sublists, it has to be broken down in a logical, consistant, and relevant way, such as by year of election. Doops | talk 15:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A break down by period is appropriate; a break down by country of origin is appropriate; a break down by ethnicity is also appropriate where the ethnicity is not predominately based in one country. We have one list here; others can be created at any time. John Vandenberg 16:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, sure; but it was your 'hence' I was replying to— this list stands or falls on its own merits. It's raison d'etre is clearly not "to fill the gap left by the non-existence of "List of Fellows of the Royal Society." Cheers, Doops | talk 19:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is true that the list would be too big, but the creation and maintenance of this list was never meant to serve as a sub-list. No other list was ever created or likely ever intended to be created. An in fact, the few similar lists that existed has been deleted, so the idea of this serving as a sub-list was thrown out. Bulldog123 21:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete — I just don't see the notability. "List of left-handed artists" might be notable; but "list of left-handed soccer players" isn't. Doops | talk 15:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - OK, the argument you give is kind of a non-sequitur, but for what it's worth, "left handed soccer players" seems more counterintuitive than anything. =O.o= -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff)
 * Well, yes, I don't mean that they play soccer left-handed, just that they're left-handed in everyday life. Doops | talk 02:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete a list of all Royal Society members = good (if too large). A selective list of the former based on a single trait that has no logical bearing on being a member of said institution = bad. I would similarly support deletion if instead of Jewish it said "colorblind", "social conservative", "bald", "homosexual", "Catholic", "fans of Manchester United"...ad nauseum...no matter how sourced such (hopefully) nonexistent article are. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: do you really think that being "Jewish", from the categorial perspective, is some how equal to "homosexual" or even to "Catholic"???- I don’t think so, because Jews are well identified group and this is not true in the same why for Catholics, for example, since if a Catholic person convert to Protestant, than his former religious status have no importance. Unlike these, being Jew mean also to be from certain historical background and from different, well defined, ethnic group. I would have no objection for "Christian" or for "European", "German" and any other category, and I think that Jewish is very much the same.--Gilisa 19:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming you were responding to me, I indented your comment. I've no interest in debating the relative merits & constructs of "Jewishness" versus any other human descriptive--that's a pointless and insulting exercise. I would reject "German" or "Christian" or "Atheist" or "Male" or anything similar for the clear reason stated: it's a single trait that has no logical bearing on being a member of said institution. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Why don't those bent on maintaining this list just sort of "upmerge" it and make it the start of List of Fellows of the Royal Society, which seems a perfectly reasonable list? &mdash; Scientizzle 19:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don’t know about it. any way, I was responding to you, as you already guessed. And I don’t think that I made any insulting exercise. I just think that nationality, ethnicity and etc can’t be compared to sexual orientation, gender or even sex, for example, which are all part of a personal status, unlike nationality or ethnicity.--Gilisa 07:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll have to disagree on the status of nationality or ethnicity, as I cannot comprehend how they're anything but a "personal status". Nobody has yet to make a compelling case for why there should be a breakdown of Royal Society members by religion or ethnicity besides the fact that it's already here. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Well referenced and encyclopedic, for the reasons so eloquently stated above. Epson291 05:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, well-referenced has nothing to do with it, and "encyclopedic" needs to be proven. As it appears, many valid attempts have been made to disprove it but none to prove it. Simply saying it is because it is won't work. Bulldog123 11:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Those references belong in the main articles for sure--and it's a great thing that such reference work has been done. Kudos to those who did the work. But just because you can break down a large list into a smaller list based on what is effectively an arbitrary division (because, again, no logical reason has been proffered for one's status as a Jew having any impact on one's status as a Royal Society member, or vice versa) does not mean that one should create such a sublist. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete OR issues and little chance for improvement.--MONGO 14:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The only improvement I can see would be to make this list into List of Fellows of the Royal Society and actually create something encyclopedic. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:42, 29 June 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.