Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim Nobel Laureates


 * 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. Not for a deletion of all of them together, at least. The nominator may want to examine the discussion to determine whether it might make more sense to nominate some of these separately.  Sandstein  07:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Muslim Nobel Laureates

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There are several lists of Nobel laureates that I think are misguided. Nobel prizes are awarded for someone's work in a relevant field such as chemistry or medicine or because they have contributed to world peace but they are not awarded for someone's religion, ethnicity or gender nor even by where they live. The issue of whether a laureate is a Muslim, Jew, black or other can be covered in their article if there is one about them. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

I have not nominated the list of women laureates because the official website has a section on the lack of women laureates. Green Giant (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Question: Shouldn't this list of lists also include ? --Lambiam 23:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I forgot that one and added it afterwards. Green Giant (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Question: How do we reconcile (for instance) the nomination for deletion of List of Jewish Nobel laureates with (for instance) List of Jews in sports? Wouldn't the same reasons for deletion of (for instance) "List of Jewish Nobel laureates" apply to (for instance) "List of Jews in sports"? Why would a distinction be made between (for instance) those two lists as concerns a nomination for deletion such as the one we are considering here? Bus stop (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. These lists are unnecessary. In response to the above concern about the List of Jews in sports, the page states that 'The topic of Jewish participation in sports is discussed extensively in academic and popular literature', and has the sources to prove it. That makes it worthy of inclusion. None of the Nobel laureate lists have comparable coverage except List of Jewish Nobel laureates, which perhaps should be kept. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, No one is claiming that people get Nobel Prize because of their religion,we are just saying that these Nobel Laureates were Muslims in their faith,& diverse groups of people got the Nobel Prize,If Jewish Nobel Laureates are not deleted,then there is no logic why muslim Nobel Laureates should be deleted.--User:Skashifakram(UTC)
 * I understand that it could be frustrating to see one list be deleted and not the other one but one tries to establish notability. Do you have any notable source talking about muslim nobel laureates? Eleventh1 (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Skashifakram, why is it important to identify Nobel laureates by their religion at all? Green Giant (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Skashifakram, come on! Your last edit modified this comment to prefix it with your third "Keep" !vote.  I understand you are passionate about keeping the list you have been working on, but that's no reason to try to sneak in two extra !votes, it's really poor form.  Zad68 (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Because,after all people need to know the Truth.Is it an extra-ordinary demand?If you dont like(because what administrators decide goes),you can include these lists into category list.These lists give confidence to marginalised groups & give them confidence that they deserve to prosper....User:Skashifakram(UTC)
 * Delete but may I suggest that we distinguish in the discussion between the six articles that didn't try (at all) to establish their notability and the List of Jewish Nobel laureates that tried (even if I think that it failed and should be deleted anyway). The obvious problem with these lists is that there is a potentially infinite number of imaginable list of Nobel laureates by nationality (including former nationality), ethnicity (very fuzzy domain), religion (really nothing to do with Nobel prizes) or anything else. Eleventh1 (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ok,then make the list in the subsection of List of Muslims & then delete it,this is the least I can hope for.--User:Skashifakram.(UTC)


 * Keep—the nominator says "...I think [they] are misguided." This is not a good enough reason in my opinion for deletion. "Misguided" for what reason? Another editor's reason given for deletion is that these Lists are "unnecessary." I find that reason tepid at best. We should not be deleting articles based upon someone's assessment that they are "unnecessary". This in my opinion is tantamount to "I don't like it." I am willing to change my mind. But I would only do so if a good enough reason for deletion is given. Bus stop (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Bus stop..User:Skashifakram(UTC)
 * Comment - If it wasn't clear from the second sentence of my nomination, the reason for deletion is that "prizes are awarded for work in a relevant field such as chemistry or medicine ... but not for someone's religion, ethnicity or gender...". If you can find any evidence that these people were awarded Nobel prizes for being Jewish or Muslim then I will happily withdraw this nomination. Green Giant (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Green Giant—these are attributes of identity associated with Nobel laureates. To my knowledge no editor has advanced an idea of a connection or relationship between prizes awarded and the attribute of identity associated with each of the above Lists. The Lists are the products of editorial initiative. I think that the onus is on you to show why dismantling the product of the above editorial efforts is warranted—not simply that the connection or relationship has not been established. There is to my knowledge no editor arguing for the identification of any such connection or relationship. Is that your argument—that we must firmly nail down a connection or relationship between the attribute of identity associated with each of the above Lists and the winning of Nobel prizes in order to justify the existence of these Lists? Bus stop (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The evidence that you need is right there in the titles of these lists. "List of Jewish Nobel laureates" implies a link between the Nobel prize and the fact the recipient may be Jewish, otherwise there is no good reason to categorise Nobel prize winners by their faith. Look at the most relevant lists: List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry, List of Nobel laureates in Literature, List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates, List of Nobel laureates in Physics and List of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine - each of those titles implies a direct link between the award of the prize and the field they received it for. Green Giant (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am exactly with you [Bus stop],we never claimed that there is a connection of Nobel Prize with jewishness & muslim character.When you say American Nobel laureate,you dont say that someone got Nobel because of being American,but you say that that man happened to be American,that's all.A Nobel Laureate is a pride for all nations,all communities & all of humankind.


 * User:Green Giant,please dont misunderstand us.Let us become united for freedom of speech & representation of all groups of people regardless of their ethnicity or religion...User:Skashifakram(UTC)
 * I am sorry you misunderstand me, but this is not the right forum for freedom of speech and representation of all peoples. It is an online encyclopedia, nothing more, nothing less. Green Giant (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Why are you sorry,does not the neutrality policy of wikipedia suggests that wikipedia should be unbiased.You think that this is not a place for representing people.It's ridiculous.Then you should delete all lists related to LGBT community,which we dont want....User:Skashifakram(UTC)


 * Comment I think it is questionable to create lists based on criteria that belong to the personal sphere (like religion) for something that is in no way connected to religion, like getting a Nobel prize. Not every Nobel prize winner may publicly reveal his religion (if any), and what if a Nobel prize winner secretly converts from one religion to another? They are then in a list where they do not belong. And where will it stop with this kind of lists? One could as well create a List of vegetarian Nobel laureates or List of gay Nobel laureates or List of Nobel laureates with asthma or List of Nobel laureates who meditate, and you may the find sources needed to start filling up such lists. But what is the point of having such lists? MakeSense64 (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Green giant makes a valid point. The award has no relation to someones ethnicity, culture, religion, birthplace, political affiliation etc. Most scientists do not even identify themselves belonging to any particular group. This is like tagging someone as a Nazi who is by birth from a Nazi supporters family line but is a great scientist and does not want to relate himself/herself with any group or ethnic identity. All the lists should be deleted.HasperHunter (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Question: Should an article such as Welsh Nobel laureates and nominees be added here? If not, why not? Bus stop (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment While I tend to agree with the nominator's sentiments, I think this AfD is badly thought out, misnamed, and unlikely to result in anything but confusion. The lists have different criteria for inclusion (though such criteria are often unclear), and as such each needs to be looked at individually. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that a list by nationality is valid - it can be based entirely on objective data - while arguing that one based on ethnicity or faith is going to be inherently arbitrary and subjective. Lumping a disparate collection of lists together and expecting a conclusive result is unlikely to get us anywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well... if it seems badly thought out then you can blame it on the instructions at WP:AfD which I tried to follow as closely as possible. True it seems like a loosely connected set of lists but I included all of these lists because I found them lumped together in a subsection of the Nobel Prizes template. Personally I think it is better to have the discussion in one go rather than tackling this matter piecemeal. Green Giant (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:BUNDLE. A 'loosely connected set of lists' shouldn't be nominated together. It is highly unlikely to resolve anything. As it stands, this AfD, includes the controversial List of Jewish Nobel laureates, but there is no notification of the AfD on the article. I understand that this is a consequence of the article being fully protected, but this effectively renders the whole AfD improper. I ask that the nominator withdraws the nomination, and instead starts a discussion at Village pump (policy). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Right... so you throw the same guidelines back at me, but with a different title? Did you note that "WP:Bundle" is identical to the instructions for multiple nominations at AfD? Also this is the most appropriate place for this discussion and not the pump. Green Giant (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Green Giant, you have to nominate each article for deletion individually on the relevant pages, rather cleverly trying to do them all on the page with the least discussion. I'm not in favour of deleting them. Although I think that some of them need to be re-written, and (in my opinion) re-titled, so that it is clearer who we are actually listing.Avaya1 (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ermm... no I do not have to nominate them separately, read the relevant guideline at AfD and you will not it says to nominate one article and then add a template to the top of each of the other articles... and no there is nothing "clever" about trying to follow the guidelines. Green Giant (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Invalid AfD -- relist for each article This AfD proposal is a clear violation of WP:BUNDLE.  From WP:BUNDLE:
 * Examples of articles which may be bundled into a single nomination:
 * A group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles.
 * A group of hoax articles by the same editor.
 * A group of spam articles by the same editor.
 * A series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products.
 * An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled&mdash; nominate it separately. If you're unsure, don't bundle it.
 * Each of the articles in this AfD bundle has its own, individual list of secondary source cites that could support it. The list of reliable sources that you would use for List of Jewish Nobel laureates is not the same list of sources that you would use for List of black Nobel Laureates, and so there is absolutely no policy-based reason to allow them to be bundled together in an AfD.
 * The several responses Delete !voters have cited are not backed by available sources and/or Wikipedia policy:
 * Prizes are "not awarded for someone's religion" -- This is backward observation; in fact it is because prizes are not awarded by religion that makes the exceptional intersections between being a laureate and being a member of a religion (ethnicity, etc.) notable and covered by reliable sources, and therefore meeting the Wikipedia criteria for notability for an article.
 * "These lists are unnecessary" Untrue, with these lists deleted it would be MUCH harder to piece together the information each list contains
 * Eleventh1 and HasperHunter say Delete but provide no novel reason
 * I didn't give any new reason because : 1/ notability is a basic requirement for any article as you certainly know (if not, see WP:GNG) and we don't need any other justification that a lack of source establishing this notability to delete an article, 2/ I already express myself on the talkpage of the article (the one about muslims) 3/ we should avoid anything that could lead us to a form of wikilawyering about the validity of the Afd and focus on the existence and validity of sources that could justify the existence of these lists. Eleventh1 (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the particular list List of Jewish Nobel laureates, I use DoctorKubla's own argument regarding List of Jews in sports, where he says "'The topic of Jewish participation in sports is discussed extensively in academic and popular literature', and has the sources to prove it. That makes it worthy of inclusion." as an argument to keep the list. The stark disparity between the percentage of Jews in world population vs. the percentage of Jews in the Nobel Prize laureate list is indeed notable enough that sources cover it as well.
 * Regarding the lists I haven't mentioned (List of Muslim Nobel Laureates, List of black Nobel Laureates etc.), if the intersection between being a Nobel laureate and a member of the named group is notable enough, on a group-by-group basis, to receive reliable secondary source coverage, and the sources are brought, the list should be kept. If not, it should be deleted.  The discussion must be on a group-by-group basis. Zad68 (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with most of the above comment. I think the only issue it misses is that these three specific lists - List of black Nobel Laureates, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, List of Muslim Nobel laureates - have serious problems of clarity, and they need to explain clearly the inclusion criteria that they are using. This is probably most strong in the 'black' list. It should really be re-titled 'list of Nobel laureates who have African ancestry'. Avaya1 (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - WP:BUNDLE is identical to the instructions located in the multiple nominations subsection of WP:AfD, so please stop quoting it as some sort of separate policy. I know from experience that if I nominated these articles separately I would still have editors on my back calling for them to be nominated together. Zad68, what you quoted there about "examples of articles" is precisely that - examples, not an all-encompassing list of what can be nominated. All of these articles are related by virtue of the words "Nobel laureates" in each of their titles. What exactly is "backward observation"?
 * I think some editors think I am some sort of ogre but let me assure you it isn't true. The single defining criteria for all of these people is that they are awarded Nobel prizes for work they have done. It is absolutely essential that we should list them separately in terms of the fields of their work e.g. chemistry or physics but whether they are black or white, Jewish or Muslim is not really relevant to the Nobel prize. EQUALLY' I have nothing against each of the actual laureates being categorised as Muslim or Jewish in the appropriate categories - its just I don't its relevant to link winning the prize with their religion or ethnicity. Green Giant (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Green Giant, you are right, WP:BUNDLE is not policy, but it does give guidelines what makes sense to bundle and what it does not. It was misleading of me to use the words "clear violation of WP:BUNDLE" and suggest it is.  Nothing prevents you from making an AfD and bundling List of Presidents of the United States with Otalgia.  However, the argument still stands that the bundle of articles in this AfD goes beyond what WP:BUNDLE suggests, and in fact runs against:  "An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled."  I think I've made a pretty convincing argument (see my comments above) that the individual articles in the bundle here do not at all stand together and have a shared basis of merit in reliable sources.  You have not addressed this at all, and I think you would really need to to convince the Admin closing this AfD that the case for Delete has been made.  So far, your argument seems to be simply "I don't like it." Zad68 (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Green Giant, by "backwards observation" I mean: You think the list is irrelevant because religion (or ethinicity, etc.) is not considered in awarding the Nobel prize.  This is backwards.  Reliable secondary sources comment on the intersection (for certain groups) of ethnicity and being awarded a Nobel prize because ethnicity and religion are not considered in the awarding of the prize.  It is exactly when a statistical anomaly happens in this intersection that makes the list notable.  There is no List of canine entrants to the Westminster Dog Show because the relationship is so uninteresting that no reliable secondary sources cover it.  Zad68 (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Poor reason for nomination, reliable sources in the List of Jewish Nobel laureates show validity of the list, counterarguments by Zad68.   Th e S te ve   23:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment To what sources are you referring to? Many scientists here have publicly refused to identify with any ethnic group, religion culture etc. Those sources are simply basing their identitly by birth. not quite reliable.HasperHunter (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. No policy or guideline-based reason for nomination (see WP:DEL-REASON), and there are actually lots of sources that specifically discuss at least some of these topics. Dozens of reliable sources discuss the high percentage Nobel Laureates who are Jews: this book alone, for example, devotes 14 pages to analyzing the phenomenon. In fact, whole books have been literally been written on the subject. Zad68's comments about WP:BUNDLE are also quite accurate and compelling. Jayjg (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep ,List of Muslim Nobel Laureates is no longer unsourced & notability is almost established.Thank you...(User:Skashifakram)..(UTC) Multiple !votes removed. Jakew (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Green,Now,you should withdraw your nominations,your point has been written in the introduction of the article.Thank You... Skashifakram (talk • contribs) 10:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - to nominate these for deletion because ethnicity etc. are irrelevant is basically an I-don't-like-it argument. Tom Harrison Talk 12:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * strongly keep -If we start deleting articles based on our pre-assumptions & biases,we will fail to make wikipedia,a dream come true,a summary of all human knowledge,freely available to every one on earth and which everyone can edit..User:Skashifakram(UTC) Multiple !votes removed. Jakew (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest to make an end to the discussion and withdrawal of all the nominations or have a vote,Thank you..User:Skashifakram(UTC)
 * Firstly, this is not a vote - and secondly, if it was, you wouldn't get to vote twice... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 *  Ok, I agree with you..User:Skashifakram(UTC)


 * Keep and merge - I do think that secundary characteristics of celebrated people are noteworthy, but perhaps we shouldn't arbitrarily be creating a new article for every feature. I propose that a sortable list/table should be construed which preserves most of the collected data and gives a clear overview of all nobel laureates and the most notible secundary characteristics: gender, etnicity, country of origin, religious belief (if any) and age (at death). --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. That is exactly what we must not do - see WP:BLPCAT: "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources... These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs or sexual orientation or suggest that any living person has a poor reputation". Nobody should have their religion for example given on a list unless it is directly relevant to their notability. Indeed, a list of the form you propose would quite likely fall foul of privacy legislation in some countries - see the UK Data Protection Act 1998 for example. Though Wikipedia servers are located in the US, anyone based in the UK that was adding such material could quite possibly be breaking the law. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

...Skashifakram(UTC) Multiple !votes removed. Jakew (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep the bundle, maybe renominate individual ones if anyone sees fit. I don't see how List of [characteristic] Nobel Laureates-style articles fall afoul of our list guidelines (as long as they are sourced, of course). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, Comment and Week Delete: The country-wise lists shall be deleted. All List of Nobel laureats in [subject] have the column of country. Adding sortability to these tables would be helpful. List of Nobel laureates in Literature also has a country-wise table at the bottom. Having similar on all lists would serve the purpose. Distinction as per religion, ethnicity and religious-beliefs have no relation with being Nobel laureats. Hence Week delete for those. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep ,When notability is established,there is no sense to show your administrative powers,you people dont want us to make a list of nobel laureates by faith in category,nor a more authentic and sourced Lists of Nobel Laureates,what do you think,what you say will go,you people always discourage new users,what's the problem with you, all muslim nobel laureates had a component of Islam and Muslim culture in their life,please go through the references.
 * Is Religion a taboo in wikipedia, if yes, why? ..Skashifakram(UTC)
 * I think this page is ok, please dont delete this.I am a new wikipedian...User:jimindian —Preceding undated comment added 11:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC).


 * Suggestion I've not looked at any of these so far, but might it be a better idea to re-bundle this AfD into 3 seperate discussions Religion(Muslim,Jewish,Atheist), Nationality (Chinese, Japanese,India), Race. I'm seeing arguments that pick at the various components.  With a packaged AfD, it's a good idea to float a test case to provide precedent prior to doing a bulk deletion (See my work on Articles for deletion/Dodger, Bonzo and the Rest (Dramarama Episode) that lead into Articles for deletion/Peter (Dramarama Episode) that was the multi-Article AfD).  I know we have WP:NOTBURO, but this gives a good opportunity to debate the article groups on their group info. Hasteur (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree Apples and oranges. It's reasonable to expect, and easy to confirm, that a list of individual episodes from an obscure 80's British children's show would all have (or lack) a similar base of reliable sources supporting their notability.  As has already been argued here (and nobody has countered), each individual intersection between Nobel laurates and a particular ethic or religious group has its own, individual set of sources to review, of widely varying quantity and quality.  Even with the Dramarama example you bring, one episode Dodger, Bonzo and the Rest garnered its own individual popularity that it spun off its own show Dodger, Bonzo and the Rest notable enough for it to have its own article, while the others did not.  The list of articles in the bundle need to be evaluated on a case-by-base basis.  Zad68 (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Forrest for the trees I didn't comment on any of these articles themselves, I simply suggested that this bundling is preventing the discussion of the 3 subgroups (as I saw them) that may or may not have valid reasons for being kept. Hasteur (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Still apples and oranges.... my point is that for the items in the bundle, making "subgroups" for an AfD bundle out of any combination of them is inappropriate, because the items in the bundle are sufficiently dissimilar in their basis of support in reliable sources. We've all burned a lot of words on this AfD, I think it's time to leave it to the closing admin to review.  Zad68 (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, you want a decision? Keep AND Delete: Keep the Nationality based Laureates as there is a good reason to want to see Nobel Laureates by Country. Delete the Black Nobel Laureates as it doesn't have a solid definition to define membership in the category (IMO).  As to the religion aspect, I am having a hard time justifying the Religion Laureates section as almost all are notable for their other field.  The only ones I'd consider as being reasonable would be the shared peace prize between the Palestinians and Israelis (and that is a stretch in my mind) Hasteur (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it needs to be pointed out that the 'Jewish' list isn't religion-based - if it was, a significant portion of those included wouldn't qualify. Instead, it seems to be based on 'ethnicity as asserted by third parties', though there has been strong resistance to actually telling the readers what the criteria for inclusion are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To the average reader (and my mind) there's little difference between Judaism (which is where Jewish redirects to here) and Jews (which appears to represent the ethnicity/culture/heritage). If the list is to be based on ethnicity, it might be better to explicitly define it in the lead what the qualifications to be included are. Hasteur (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. Sadly, many other contributors don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hasteur, why do you want to keep nationality-wise lists? All "Lists of Noble Laureates in (Subject)" have the countries included. All thats needed is to make those tables sortable. Isnt that sufficient? Why duplicate the information? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep All (except for Delete on List of atheist Nobel laureates, as per Metropolitan90, below): These are no more invalid than any other list based around nationality, sex, ethnicity or any other of the silly labels over which we obsess, and I agree that the nom has submitted an IDON'TLIKEIT in place of any valid deletion rationale. Do they follow the standards of WP:LIST?  Yes.  Are they adequately sourced?  The lead one up for deletion here, at least, is heavily sourced.  Questions about "why is it important" or "OMG people could make MORE lists" are irrelevant.  Ravenswing  15:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep, because the authors of these articles violated no policy so far as I understood.We should be careful before bulk deletion...User:jimindian(UTC) — jimindian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).  Ravenswing  05:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete List of atheist Nobel laureates. The article lists about 67 names, yet only two of them have sources. Furthermore, of the two names that are sourced, the article states that one of them, Albert Einstein, rejected the label "atheist". The list purports to include "atheist, agnostic, nonbeliever or secular spiritual" laureates, yet the article title refers only to "atheist" laureates. Someone such as Einstein, who didn't subscribe to a traditional religious belief but also didn't self-identify as an atheist, shouldn't be on a list of atheists. No comment yet on the other nominated lists. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2012 (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.