Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Nobel laureates by religion


 * 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. The discussion confirms the policy at WP:NLIST, viz., that there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists. It does seem, however, that sufficient sourcing has been presented to favor the keeping of List of Jewish Nobel laureates, despite the challenges involved in unambiguously determining whether one is Jewish. If there is indeed enough sourcing to write a prose article on the relationship between Judaism and Nobel prizes, then the acceptability of a list article on the same subject follows closely behind. I do not mean to suggest that such a prose article should be written in addition to the present list, however. As for the other lists, they may be individually nominated for AFD's, at editorial discretion.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 08:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Lists of Nobel laureates by religion


There might be something to be said about the very obviously systematically biased distribution of Nobel winners or something, but I don't see how this kind of listing of people by an unrelated characteristic (the religion of most of the winners has absolutely nothing to do with what they achieved) achieves anything encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a place for unencyclopedic case studies or for unencyclopedic cross-categorisations (such as, to almost exactly quote that, people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X who have won award Y). In addition, this being a compilation which I can't seem to find elsewhere (I can find some examples of generic stuff about Nobels and religion, but not much about particular religions), even in part, makes it textbook WP:OR (as something first being published on Wikipedia, which is supposed to reflect existing sources, is OR pretty much by definition).

In short, fails WP:NOT and WP:NOR.

Group nom since they all similarly fail WP:NOT (this applies even more to the non-religious group: we don't generally list things or people by characteristics they don't have...), and many seem to based on a single work by Baruch Shalev. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural note many of these were deleted previously (in fact, I think, all of them, at some point). Could an admin check whether they meet WP:G4 with the deleted pages? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination) strikes surprisingly true even well over a decade later... I amend my nomination to delete and salt due to repeated recreation despite previous AfDs closing as delete. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 19.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 16:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even the first two sentences of Jewish list gives a lot of sources (not all these sources are good, but they still exist). Sources say that the topic is valid, so why should it be deleted? There are a lot of strange lists on Wikipedia, these are not the worst ones. Artem.G (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) "Jews rank high among winners of Nobel, but why not Israelis", J. The Jewish News of Northern California, October 25, 2002. "There are three central theories given for Jewish academic achievement, according to Shulamit Volkov, professor of history at Tel Aviv University and author of "The Magic Circle: Germans, Jews and Anti-Semites." The first theory says that Jews are cleverer than others, a theory dismissed by Volkov and other serious academics. The second theory, proposed first by an American sociologist in 1919, holds that because Jews were on the margins of society they were forced to excel. The third and more common explanation, says Volkov, states that generations of Jewish Orthodox learning later translated brilliantly into secular learning."
 * 2) Noah Efron, "The Real Reason Why Jews Win So Many Nobel Prizes", Haaretz, October 21, 2013.
 * 3) Mark Mietkiewicz, "Nobel Prize and the Jews", Canadian Jewish News, December 10, 2018.
 * 4) Raphael Patai, The Jewish Mind, Wayne State University Press, 1996, pp. 339-371, 547-548.
 * 1) "Jews rank high among winners of Nobel, but why not Israelis", J. The Jewish News of Northern California, October 25, 2002. "There are three central theories given for Jewish academic achievement, according to Shulamit Volkov, professor of history at Tel Aviv University and author of "The Magic Circle: Germans, Jews and Anti-Semites." The first theory says that Jews are cleverer than others, a theory dismissed by Volkov and other serious academics. The second theory, proposed first by an American sociologist in 1919, holds that because Jews were on the margins of society they were forced to excel. The third and more common explanation, says Volkov, states that generations of Jewish Orthodox learning later translated brilliantly into secular learning."
 * 2) Noah Efron, "The Real Reason Why Jews Win So Many Nobel Prizes", Haaretz, October 21, 2013.
 * 3) Mark Mietkiewicz, "Nobel Prize and the Jews", Canadian Jewish News, December 10, 2018.
 * 4) Raphael Patai, The Jewish Mind, Wayne State University Press, 1996, pp. 339-371, 547-548.
 * 1) "Jews rank high among winners of Nobel, but why not Israelis", J. The Jewish News of Northern California, October 25, 2002. "There are three central theories given for Jewish academic achievement, according to Shulamit Volkov, professor of history at Tel Aviv University and author of "The Magic Circle: Germans, Jews and Anti-Semites." The first theory says that Jews are cleverer than others, a theory dismissed by Volkov and other serious academics. The second theory, proposed first by an American sociologist in 1919, holds that because Jews were on the margins of society they were forced to excel. The third and more common explanation, says Volkov, states that generations of Jewish Orthodox learning later translated brilliantly into secular learning."
 * 2) Noah Efron, "The Real Reason Why Jews Win So Many Nobel Prizes", Haaretz, October 21, 2013.
 * 3) Mark Mietkiewicz, "Nobel Prize and the Jews", Canadian Jewish News, December 10, 2018.
 * 4) Raphael Patai, The Jewish Mind, Wayne State University Press, 1996, pp. 339-371, 547-548.
 * 1) Mark Mietkiewicz, "Nobel Prize and the Jews", Canadian Jewish News, December 10, 2018.
 * 2) Raphael Patai, The Jewish Mind, Wayne State University Press, 1996, pp. 339-371, 547-548.


 * Still fails WP:NOT. Those sources might be useful to say something about the systematic bias (or the somehow otherwise biased distribution) of Nobel prizes, but they do not themselves support a listing like this (many of them barely name an example or two). Your comment doesn't address how this is also exactly the same issue with all the others, minus the additional lack of sources on those. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It also doesn't help that many of the sources above are opinion pieces, youtube videos, or even dead links which I can't verify... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Systematic bias of Nobel prizes might be a valid topic (ex. ; ; ), but that doesn't mean a list of people by an otherwise unrelated characteristic (such as the ethnic / cultural / religious group from WP:NOT) is a valid encyclopedic entry. We don't have List of African-American members of the United States House of Representatives, even if Racism in the United States is a very valid topic). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh, there is List of African-American United States representatives. Reywas92Talk 17:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, nevermind. That article still doesn't seem to be much better than this, either. The only sources which directly address the topic (as opposed to being there for some other factual biographical aspect) are a short paragraph on the US house website and a Huffpost article which is actually about the Senate and not the House... Coverage of individual members =/= NLIST. But that doesn't address the fact that, unlike even racism in the United States (which is a culturally significant phenomenon, and might yet not quite be up to par for a list here), "Nobel prizes and religion" is not a culturally significant phenomenon however you spin it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * While not directly used as citations, further reading sources and ELs including America's Black Congressmen, Just Permanent Interests: Black Americans in Congress, 1870–1991, and African Americans In Congress: A Documentary History make that unambiguously notable for NLIST, and the tag was unwarranted. I don't yet have an opinion on the lists at hand. Reywas92Talk 19:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. It is true that Jews are overrepresented, but that could be added to Nobel Prize. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep List of Muslim Nobel laureates Otherwise featured articles like List of Indian Nobel laureates risk being deleted (12 entries); List of Muslim Nobel laureates has 13 entries. For List of Jewish Nobel laureates, I am neutralI don't know what fate would befall List of Israeli Nobel laureates, List of Russian Nobel laureates or List of Hungarian Nobel laureates. I'm not sure WP:OTHERSTUFF always applies. List of Nobel Laureates by country is long but interesting; it's nice to see the separate Italian list for Marconi, Pirandello and Fermi. Mathsci (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So "keep because I don't want other lists like this to be deleted"? How unconvincing. If the other stuff doesn't have the same problems, it won't get deleted. If it does have the same problems, then it should also be deleted, too bad. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not what I wrote or implied. I mentioned two lists List of Muslim Nobel Laureates and List of Indian Nobel laureates, with a handful of comparable entries, notably Ramachandran and Salam. I cannot materially see any difference between these lists; the idea of statistics for such a small but extraordinary sample does not make any sense. The Prod for List of Arab Nobel laureates is similar. I did also notice this and this, with Generalrelative's "important notice", which gave me pause for thought. Mathsci (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Otherwise featured articles like List of Indian Nobel laureates risk being deleted is pretty much "keep because I don't want other lists like this to be deleted". The sample being "extraordinary" does not mean that every possible factual intersection about it belongs on Wikipedia. We don't have List of US Presidents by birthday or List of British monarchs by age at accession or List of Oscar winners by religion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * List of female Nobel laureates is a wp:featured article which has now been listed for deletion. It is properly cited and has gone through the usual WP:FAC process here. Mathsci (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I would like to note that religion does play a direct role in the activities of some Nobel Prizes such as the Peace prizes for example. American Friends Service Committee (Quaker Organization), Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, are a few examples. World leaders like Barack Obama have expressed influence from their religious convictions on activities that contributed to winning a prize.65.223.10.226 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing to add to nom, who has stated it very clearly; this is a prime example of unencyclopedic cross-categorisation. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep We usually ignore the fact that the Nobel Prize is not about science categories only, and that the religion of many Nobel Prize winners has a lot to do with what they achieved. For example, many Nobel Peace Prize winners state that their achievements and their activities were influenced in some way by their religion, such as Nathan Söderblom, Emily Greene Balch, John Mott, Albert Schweitzer, Dominique Pire, Albert Luthuli, Desmond Tutu, Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, Jimmy Carter, Leymah Gbowee, Denis Mukwege, and others. In the literature category some laureates were strongly influenced by religion, and religious themes can be seen in their works, such as Selma Lagerlöf, Sigrid Undset, T. S. Eliot, Czesław Miłosz, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Bob Dylan, and others. Even certain science laureates have been strongly influenced by religion, and use science to support their perspectives about religion and science, such as Richard Smalley, William Daniel Phillips, Peter Grünberg, Gerhard Ertl, Arthur Compton, Robert Andrews Millikan, and others. I find it interesting that only these kinds of list are nominated for deletion, by claiming that "the religion of most of the winners has absolutely nothing to do with what they achieved", while with lists about countries (such as List of Nobel laureates by country), or ethnicity (such as the List of Arab Nobel laureates, List of black Nobel laureates, and List of Latin American Nobel laureates), or gender (List of female Nobel laureates)--no one gets bothered. By analyzing some laureates it's clear religion of the winners has a lot to do with what they achieved more than nationality, ethnicity or gender, yet these are the only kind of lists that are nominated for deletion. desmay (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Other shit exists", is not a convincing argument in the slightest. I probably should (will/already have in some cases) nominate most of those others too. If, as you claim, "some Nobel laureates were strongly influenced by religion", you should find sources which confirm this (per WP:V and WP:NRVE) and show how the specific link between Nobels and religion is a culturally significant phenomenon worthy of an encyclopedic entry (and then there are plenty of things which are worthy of encyclopedic topics which don't need lists about it); as opposed to the more generic Relationship between science and religion or the hypothetical but probably article worthy Systematic bias of Nobel Prizes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I find this article very useful. It is a valuable index within this encyclopedia concerning Nobel laureates. WP:NOT criteria defend against bureaucratic and censorship motivated article policing and the removal of this article would give grounds for suspicion of such grounds being used. The summarisation of the external research covered, describing the motivation and human character formation factors resulting in the exceptional work honoured by the award of these prizes is of wider interest. If this article is removed from Wikipedia its content of interest is unlikely to be so easily findable elsewhere. The article could perhaps be strengthened if it indexes in addition other human character relevant research e.g. including nationality, migration status, organisational affiliations etc, making this article about more than just the faith position of Nobel laureates. --Copsewood (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT are non-arguments to begin with. List of Nobel laureates already exists. Other "relevant human character[istics]" would probably also fall under WP:NOT unless you can show that those are more than trivial intersections (organisational affiliation has already been discussed elsewhere; migration status seems trivial, ...). If the "content is unlikely to be findable elsewhere", that seems a good argument that this is actually WP:OR and therefore shouldn't be included to begin with. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  12:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The removal request fails on WP:OR in the sense this article summarises research it references available elsewhere offline in book form. Removal of this list would make the original research harder to find, and summarisation of it much more time consuming. Achieving such ends is not a valid motivation for article removal. Migration and multilingual status are non trivial to the extent internationalisation of perspective contributes towards the intellectual achievement a Nobel Prize represents. Copsewood (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely keep these pages, in an age and time when modern science is suggesting that the brain is the most challenging frontier yet to be understood by science we must consider any data that relates to the mechanisms of great thinkers. We can now understand how synaptic systems form we use terms like engram and ensemble and we discuss network formation. However we do not understand cognition and the way that the brain formats things such as thoughts and ideas.
 * To suggest that we should not consider what religion our great thinkers engaged in is very frightening censorship. Religion is a topic that almost all great thinkers at some point engage in so how can we ignore this valuable data as we hope to understand the science of the brain and contributions of great humans over time.
 * Wikipedia is not the place for political or religious censorship and that is exactly what this would be. This information is not harmful, illegal or dangerous. Censorship can be. I could understand if this data was somehow an effort to convey how to build WMD's, harm life in any form or basically inaccurate or unimportant. This data is none of these things. Please do not turn Wikipedia into a political forum where activists attempt to suppress free speech and open sharing of non-harmful data. 2601:603:167E:2D0:41CE:DCCF:4D37:81D6 (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Incoherent rambling that has nothing to do with notability standards. Do try harder. Dronebogus (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

— 2601:603:167E:2D0:41CE:DCCF:4D37:81D6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * A textbook example of WP:ITSIMPORTANT; and a non-sequitur on top: the pages being about religion does not mean an attempt to delete them is "religious censorship" (and even if it were, that would not be a valid reason to keep them). Otherwise utter nonsense: using such exaggerated language in an attempt at a rhetorical coup de force falls flat on its face without reference to reliable sources (upon which Wikipedia should be based on) or other more convincing arguments. Claiming that these pages somehow provide any insight into "the mechanisms of great thinkers" (despite the absolute lack of substantial prose) similarly goes against all existing evidence. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: The discussion would benefit from a policy related input Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete meaningless trivial intersection of unrelated things; keep votes are mostly inexperienced users review bombing with non-arguments like WP:ITSIMPORTANT or WP:ILIKEIT. Dronebogus (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: The religion of Nobel Prize winners has been covered by good sources; sociologist and professor Harriet Zuckerman discusses the religion of American Nobel Prize winners in her work, Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. The same figures and topic have been covered by Professor Gregory J. Feist in The Psychology of Science and the Origins of the Scientific Mind; the sociologist and professor Gerhard Lenski, in The Religious Factor, discusses why Protestants and Jews are overrepresented in being recipients of the Nobel Prize (or being scientists in general) versus other religious groups, or inside the Protestant world, why some denominations (such as Episcopalian or other mainline groups) are overrepresented in these fields versus other Protestant denominations (such as Baptist). This topic has also been covered by social psychologists Michael Argyle and Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi in their work The Psychology of Religious Behaviour, Belief and Experience, where according to them the structure of sects and religions (such as their religious behavior) plays a role in the overrepresentation of scholars (incl. Nobel Prize winners) among them, or vice versa. It's not hard to find good sources that have covered why a specific religious group is overrepresented among Nobel Prize winners. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you give precise pages (a basic courtesy) and more complete bibliographies so people who don't have the books can take a look via GBooks or another ressource to confirm whether these sources really have significant coverage about the subject (and whether it is more than passing speculation)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all, for the reasons given by the nominator. In addition, how far can the listings be trusted? Consider Christian B. Anfinsen, claimed to be Jewish, but there is nothing in his article to confirm that, and I wonder how common it is for devout Jewish parents to name a son Christian. Or take John Polanyi: his father converted from Jewish to Roman Catholic, but I know of no evidence that John Polanyi considered himself to be Jewish.   Athel cb (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In the Christian B. Anfinsen article, there is an NIH autobiographical profile cited in the article where he discusses his conversion to orthodox Judaism, and John Polanyi is listed in e.g. the Jewish Virtual Library (cited to Encyclopaedia Judaica, Gale). But more specifically, while page numbers are not available in this GBooks version of Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States, when I used the 'Search Inside' function to search for the term 'religion', there is a snippet that includes, "It should be understood, however, that the overrepresentation of Jews among American Nobel laureates tells us nothing about the extent to which their religious origins may have facilitated or hampered their achievement of scientific...".  This work is cited briefly for data in The Psychology of Science and the Origins of the Scientific Mind and an unrelated conclusion about work after winning the Nobel prize at p. 22-23 (click on the snippet to access the full pages), which at p. 74, also states, "Religious background, however, does not tease apart variability due to religious orientation, culture, race, or even genetic influence. Moreover, we must make clear that these data refer to the religious faith of one's family background and upbringing, not one's current behavior. Scientists in general, and eminent scientists in particular, are conspicuous in their rejection of organized religion." In the snippets I can view on GBooks for The Psychology of Religious Behaviour, Belief and Experience, (after searching inside for "Nobel") at p. 178 I see a mention of a study noting "a remarkable degree of irreligiousity, as compared to the populations they came from." It seems it is difficult to find reliable sources to support more than an article about this complex topic generally, while sources for more clearly definable and notable parameters related to the Nobel Prize specifically (such as gender and geography) appear to be abundant, e.g. Al Jazeera, 2021. Beccaynr (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. These lists have general encyclopedic value. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * “It’s encyclopedic” isn’t an argument. Dronebogus (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. These are mostly well sourced and have encyclopedic value. In fact all of these lists: by nationality, religion, sex are of obvious encyclopedic value. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 09:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If people bother to make detailed and well reasoned arguments why something is not encyclopedic (and making reference to established community policies, which override WP:LOCALCONSENSUS); and then people still can't be bothered to offer anything but "I feel this is obviously important"; you'll excuse me for being utterly unconvinced. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment if these lists must be kept, could we just merge them into one article about laureates by religion and not “list of Christians, list of religious Jews, list of Muslims, list of Atheists, list of Zoroastrians, list of Jedis…” Dronebogus (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all per reasonable reasons given by nom. I would salt these and also lists of Hindu and Humanist laureates. --mikeu talk 22:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:NLIST, a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. It's quite clear that the various religious groups of Nobel prize winners have each been discussed as a group or set by multiple independent reliable sources. The nominator's argument that this violates WP:NOT is less-than-persuasive; it's more or less a bare assertion that the religion of people like Mother Theresa is so unimportant in their winning of the prize that this information should be deleted. This is, of course, absurd—patently so all of the clergy who have won Nobel prizes—and it is equally absurd to frame this as purely unencyclopedic cross-categorization. With respect to the WP:OR argument, there are reliable sources that give explicit lists for Jewish winners, Jews and Muslims, so the argument that the topic is WP:OR is wholly refuted with respect to those two articles. Any WP:OR issues present in those, therefore, could be dealt with through ordinary editing. And, as WP:DEL-CONTENT notes, [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It would make the argument that this isn't OR look less silly if the list's criteria of inclusion where the same as that of sources. Yet they're all different (, for example, does not include Richard Thaler; Oliver Hart; or a fair few others. Given how "Jewish" is both an ethnicity and a religion, that definitively puts a dent in saying this is some "sky is blue" stuff which everybody agrees on (hint: they don't; and the lists are inevitably choosing a particular methodology which might as well be OR)
 * a bare assertion that the religion of people like Mother Theresa is so unimportant in their winning of the prize that this information should be deleted. a textbook strawman. The religion of individual winners being important for individual winners does not mean that a list of all winners by religion, even in cases when this is entirely irrelevant, is encyclopedically appropriate. We don't accept even categories of people who share a trivial trait where it is not otherwise relevant to their encyclopedic notability (WP:OCEGRS). For actual articles or lists in article-space, the standard is much higher - yet, except for some discussion about how Jewish winners are overrepresented, no credible source makes any mention of any link between "being Jewish" (or "being Muslim" or "being Christian") and "winning Nobel prizes". This is why this does fail WP:NOT, since the intersection is a statistical oddity, not a "culturally significant phenomenon". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And, at best, this might maybe warrant a carve-out for the Jewish list (given it does seem to be the only one which is occasionally covered in sources). The others even more obviously fail WP:NOT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep all Religion is a quite significant in the motivation of some of the winners for the literature and peace prizes (for example: Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa), possibly even economics. Also there are many publications which mention "Jewish Nobel Prize winners" in Google books alone ; it passes WP:LISTN.Orientls (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep all A valuable reference. OBender12 (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * KEEP ALL Many of the Nobel Laureates, especially the Peace Prize, are motivated by their religion. Others, such as the over-representation of Jews, are culturally or ethnically motivated. Many Laureates in Literature have used religious or cultural themes in their artistic expression, particularly from their own backgrounds. Therefore, these lists serve an encyclopedic purpose, namely to provide useful categories of information. Wigly Pigly (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Many of the Nobel Laureates, especially the Peace Prize, are motivated by their religion. Individual persons being motivated by religion does not mean the whole group (including those for whom their religion did not have any impact on the Nobel achievement) is suitable. provide useful categories of information Lists are not categories. We expect some minimum amount of coverage from which to write a summary of knowledge (which is what an encyclopedia is). Except maybe for the Jewish list, there isn't remotely the necessary amount of coverage to justify these. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment this AfD is a mess. How many keep votes are from actual, experienced, active users and how many are drivebys/SPAs/minimally active/undead accounts? I’d recommend the closing admin inspect the rationales closely to avoid a WP:NOTDEMOCRACY disaster. Dronebogus (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Somewhat surprised at the number of "I like it" !votes from users with thousands of edits who should really know to base their arguments in policy. I think RandomCanadian's interpretation here is spot-on; fundamentally this is turning an incidental element of a person and tying it to a personal accomplishment in a way that's not supported by sources. I went looking at the books suggested by 1990'sguy and I disagree that they demonstrate that it's a serious subject of academic study, versus just a side study of correlative factors. This is a WP:NOTDIRECTORY issue with a topic that doesn't demonstrate it meets WP:NLIST. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 13:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep All Bad nomination grouping these together. There's discussion as early as 1923 listing Jewish winners.


 * FWIW Judaism is the religion; being Jewish doesn't make one religious. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment RandomCanadian wrote: no credible source makes any mention of any link between "being Jewish" (or "being Muslim" or "being Christian") and "winning Nobel prizes".... nope, you're wrong.


 * Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Quoting myself, We expect some minimum amount of coverage from which to write a summary of knowledge (which is what an encyclopedia is). Except maybe for the Jewish list, there isn't remotely the necessary amount of coverage to justify these This still doesn't address any of the other groupings; hence is not a reason to keep all of them. Grouping very similar lists by what appeared like the same kind of criteria (i.e. intersection of "religion" and "Nobel laureates") is perfectly procedurally valid. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Misnamed, conflating Judaism with Jewish, easily identifiable reliable sourcing which demonstrates the notability of the list. To repeat: it's a bad nomination; it should be withdrawn and separated out. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting for further opportunity to achieve a clear consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412  T 05:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all As per Elmidae. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment There's a very broad range of academic literature which examines the intersection between Nobel winners and X (choose your category). It's hardly surprising given that 20% of Nobel winners are Jewish there would be work examining that. I find many of the arguments being used for delete here are grand generalisations, ignoring the vast literature which examines why and who wins nobel prizes. Yes, List of green-eyed winners of the Ramon Magsaysay Award would fall afoul of our policies or guidelines; but I genuinely struggle to understand how the Jewish winners list made it here: firstly, the mistaken conflation with Judaism, and secondly, the simplest of checking reveals it to be a clearly notable topic of discussion with abundant sourcing available. So, I propose that this nomination be withdrawn, that list of Jewish winners not be renominated and the other three be nominated separately. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all as a perfect example of a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization and trivia compiled through WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Marginally compelling arguments have been presented about keeping the Jewish list but the sourcing is still incredibly weak and can be easily covered on other pages so should be deleted too. Other arguments to keep are similarly weak and come down to WP:ILIKEIT so I hope these are discounted by the closer. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" except there's an encyclopedia entry with a list of Jewish winners ... this is "marginally compelling"? How is an encyclopedia entry OR or SYNTH? We can generally agree on where the "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" line begins (List of Japanese restaurants in Bamako), but the core of the problem is that there is no generalised consensus on where it ends and acceptable encyclopedic cross-categorizations begins (ie what is a "culturally significant phenomenon"). I struggle to see any justification for the blanket "delete all" !votes in the face of reliable sourcing.  There's a procedural problem with the nomination, it's been demonstrated. The qualified comments from the delete !votes essentially acknowledging that the list of Jewish winners is different only reinforces this. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Reconsider?. I have been asked on my talk page to reconsider my Delete all opinion, especially in relation to the Jewish listing. OK, I may have been poorly informed on the Jewish aspect, but my view is more general than that: I think all of these lists should go. Basically I agree with what Vladimir.copic says immediately above. Athel cb (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep because from where we are, it's the simplest thing to do. I'll explain: the intersection of religion and winning-the-Nobel-prize has clearly been written about (especially but not exclusively in relation to Judaism) and in some of the specific disciplines covered by the Nobel prize, the relationship between that discipline (e.g. the science) and religion is widely written-about (and since the Nobel prizes and their winners are the pinnacle of scientific success, it follows that the relationship between science and religion automatically overlaps with the relationship between being a Nobel prize winner and being a scientist). So the subject exists, is sourced, and deserves an article. I would have felt better if someone had written it in the form of an article. But instead, it's in the form of a list. Now even as a list, it has value: it is quite likely that our readers will be interested in the sorts of people of the Jewish faith who've won these prizes, and what they did, so it's a directory for them. But if we're to treat it as a directory-list rather than a subject-article, then there is no justification in keeping one list (Jewish winners) and deleting another (Moslem winners). So we must either delete the lot and instead write an article, which I'm not volunteering to do, or we keep the lot. Further, if anyone were to write an article on the interaction of the Jewish faith and Nobel prize-winning, then they'd undoubtedly add a list of Jewish winners, which would become too large for the article, and need to be farmed out into exactly the sort of list we're contemplating deleting. Basically, keep is the only long-term stable solution. Elemimele (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * the relationship between that discipline (e.g. the science) and religion is widely written-about Science and religion already exists and does just fine without a list ("List of scientists by religion") to accompany it. it follows that the relationship between science and religion automatically overlaps with the relationship between being a Nobel prize winner and being a scientist Whether this is a correct generalisation, or not, I won't judge, but if it overlaps with the relationship between science and religion, why not just cover it on the existing page; and then maybe split out a Nobel laureates and religion once there is an actual, encyclopedic article about it? Further, if anyone were to write an article on the interaction of the Jewish faith and Nobel prize-winning, then they'd undoubtedly add a list of Jewish winners; in which case WP:WTAF is practical advice. If sources have written about only one of the possible intersections, it's not our job to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and also make lists about the others. We don't keep indiscriminate lists because someone might, one day, write a proper encyclopedic article about the subject. it is quite likely that our readers will be interested WP:ITSINTERESTING - unless there are sources which are as interested in it as our hypothetical readers, we'd be doing a disservice to those interested readers by having articles on them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all and salt, essentially per WP:TNT, and per Elemimele, Vladimir.copic, the scholarly commentary I noted above, and David Fuchs. This subject appears to be too complex to be rendered as lists, and the encyclopedic way to present it seems to be a prose article, e.g. Nobel laureates and religion, to avoid the kind of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that appears required to construct these lists (which is why I suggest salting the titles). Beccaynr (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep plenty of sources discuss the religion of Nobel laureates 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. WP:PROVEIT 2. That does not justify a list, it justifies an article. 9 times out of 10 lists are bad because they’re WP:NOTINFO without knowledge Dronebogus (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all The discussion above makes pretty clear that these lists inevitably represent the drawing of new conclusions from published data points. Writing an article instead of building a list may be harder, but it's the right thing to do. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all – per nom and David Fuchs, although I'm not surprised this one is so contentious. Needs to be a much more compelling connection between winning a Nobel Prize and adhering to a certain faith to warrant an article like this. Ovinus (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Further sourcing. "Alphabetical List of the Jewish Nobel Prize Winners (1905-1959)", "Includes 150 lists on such topics as ... Jewish Nobel Prize Winners", "the sheer number of recipients of the Nobel Prize for Literature... more than a dozen, including ... " (list follows)


 * That's five different texts cited in this discussion that specifically contain lists of Jewish winners of the Nobel Prize. I see no basis by which claims that the Jewish list of winners is non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation or SYNTH/OR can be maintaiend. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That still doesn’t justify a list Dronebogus (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you even look at those sources? They all discuss Jewish Nobel laureates as a category, and The Book of Jewish Lists presumably does so in list-format. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * and I have had an extended discussion at my Talk page about these issues, and from my view, as a tl;dr version, WP:LISTN tells us There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y"), so a focus on the quality of the sources seems important, and I think the scholarly sources identified in this discussion support the development of a prose article only, due to the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that otherwise appears necessary to develop standalone lists. Beccaynr (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've now had a good look at the sources presented and agree that the sources only lend support to a prose article or a section with in another article. With a couple of exceptions, sources mainly give a passing mention about number of Jewish people winning the Nobel as a titbit or interesting fact. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NLIST "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." The discussion around cross-categorisation is utterly misplaced. Jewish Nobel prize winners is a grouping which has reliable sourcing. It's axiomatic and perfectly within policy. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said in our ongoing discussion on my Talk page, from my view, when we look at the scholarly sources discussing the grouping or set generally, i.e. the ones I highlight in my first comment in the discussion, these sources tell us that the connections are more complex than a straightforward list. I also think we have some WP:NPOV issues if we attempt to develop a list, as the Who is a Jew? article helps emphasize, as well as the non-RS sources that have not been cited in the discussion but are at the top of some online search results and reflect the polarity identified by Hollinger (2002). Based on core policies, it appears that this material should be developed as a prose article that can articulate the nuances of the subject matter as expressed by reliable scholarly sources. List inclusion criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources, and the scholarly sources in particular seem to show that we do not have unambiguous criteria available, and the WP:OR/WP:NPOV concerns I have expressed apply to what appears to be a lack of objective standards for list inclusion as well as whether lists should exist despite scholarly sources telling us there is no reliable basis for making these connections, even if we can identify clear inclusion criteria. Beccaynr (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Two problems with this: (1) the scholarly, generalised discussion cited above about is about religion, not identity (2) complexifying the issue through generalisation rather than the specific instance at hand. Who is on the list is a content dispute to be resolved through analysis of sourcing, this does not invalidate the list.  I disagree with the interpretation of Hollinger, it's not a caution against discussion of Jewish Nobel winners, but rather it's about the uses of that information (although more specifically it's a rejection of a particular thesis on Jewish achievement). When there's more than 100 winners, all of whom are notable in their own right, it's completely sensible that there would be a list. No reason why the absence of one (article) should preclude the other (the list).  Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Far too many "other stuff exists" votes here. Taking existing statistics and repackaging them into a list doesn't appear to be a valid reason for this article to remain. I assume a category will be enough to direct readers to where they need to go. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Goldzstain. In many parts of the world, religion is an important identifier (just like nationality is in the West). There is no logical reason why these articles should be deleted when we have list of Nobel laureates by country. We shouldnt be overlooking the fact that the Eastern world considers religion to be an important demographic marker. CharlesWain (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet more WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSIMPORTANT. In many parts of the world politics is an important demographic, and so is Caste, or a billion other weird identifiers that don’t honestly matter. However, almost everyone has a nationality and considers it important. Dronebogus (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dronebogus I wouldn't be so quick to joke about List of Nobel laureates by caste. Someone might use these sources to justify another listicle:   ... Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn’t matter, I’ll still fight it. Dronebogus (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Jewish & Weak keep Muslim on basis of NLIST:
 * I should also like to note that quite a few op-eds discuss this issue . Some might be WP:RSOPINION, but, I guess that doesn't really fulfill NLIST. Ya'll know I'm not one for CRUFTY lists, but I do think there might actually be some meat to these topics. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * More: 6 Jewish women who won the Nobel Prize, Museum of the Jewish People, Tel Aviv University, 8 March 2017. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I should also like to note that quite a few op-eds discuss this issue . Some might be WP:RSOPINION, but, I guess that doesn't really fulfill NLIST. Ya'll know I'm not one for CRUFTY lists, but I do think there might actually be some meat to these topics. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * More: 6 Jewish women who won the Nobel Prize, Museum of the Jewish People, Tel Aviv University, 8 March 2017. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I should also like to note that quite a few op-eds discuss this issue . Some might be WP:RSOPINION, but, I guess that doesn't really fulfill NLIST. Ya'll know I'm not one for CRUFTY lists, but I do think there might actually be some meat to these topics. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * More: 6 Jewish women who won the Nobel Prize, Museum of the Jewish People, Tel Aviv University, 8 March 2017. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Many good arguments that seem irreconciliable. I see this one as "No consensus". Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep all per the cogent policy based argument made by Ⓜ️hawk10.4meter4 (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2022 (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.