Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanist 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. As often happens for block nominations some made arguments to keep some but not others or delete some but not others. This makes a determination of consensus more difficult. For at least two of the lists (the Jewish list and the Christian list) strong arguments were made for keeping. However, I recommend that anyone in favor of keeping any of these lists helps clean them up and give them better sourcing so that we do not need to go back to AfD again. JoshuaZ 02:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Humanist Nobel laureates

Nobel Prize winners are notable for winning the prize, and not for their religious or political beliefs and not for their ethnicity unless, in the case of the Nobel Peace Prize or Literature Prize, the people reflect their religious/political beliefs/ethnicity in the works that won them the prize. However, this applies to only a handful of winners, and certainly not to the ones included in this scope. Most importantly, the only sub-division of Nobel Prize winners actually supported by the Swedes has been the division by nationality. Bulldog123 02:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons outlined above:

Question Are we bound to divide them only as the prize committees do? Can we use other sources? This does need sources tho, and the one nom. should probably be retitled list of non-religious. DGG 02:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but there are barely any sources that write of intersections like this. And I don't believe we should divide them like this, if division is necessary at all, which I feel it isn't. There should be some sort of intrinsic connections, wikipedia-article-worthy for divisions like this. Bulldog123 02:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant intersection.. Resolute 03:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial, and probably biased intersection. --Haemo 06:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The phrase "clearly or very probably" in the first sentence indicates the speculative nature of the exercise. StAnselm 07:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My "Delete" vote applied to the humanist page only. With "Jewish" Nobel laurates it is also an ethmic/cultural designation, and so should be considered separately. StAnselm 07:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all with the possible exception of Jewish Laureates (not that I'd fight too hard to keep that). "Humanist" makes me think of Erasmus or Petrarch anyway. --Folantin 07:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ethnicity applies as well. For example had List of Black Nobel laureates or Llist of Asian Nobel laureates existed, they would be nominated too. However, Jewish appears to be the only division thats also an ethnic one. Bulldog123 07:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, get rid of it too. --Folantin 07:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 13:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm inclined to delete because the pages are subject to vandalism and are high maintenance. Still, the information may have an historical context that is being overlooked, an example is Otto Heinrich Warburg, who is on the list of Jewish Laureates, and isn't Jewish by the way, (but his father, another well known German scientist, was), was a Nobel laureate who lived and worked in Germany during WWII. The list might actually serve a purpose, if it was referenced (and therefore accurate), and if it included years, because it would directly place the laureates in an historical context which impacted their science. Oh, if you think politics doesn't impact science and religion doesn't impact politics, well .... KP Botany 16:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're proposing a List of Nobel laureates by era, not a list of Nobel laureates by religion, etc. So I don't know for certain what you mean by these lists are being overlooked. "Oh, if you think politics doesn't impact science and religion doesn't impact politics, well ...." That's an extreme overextension. Just because politics might impact science and religion might impact politics, doesn't mean either religion or politics impacted every single one of these men in respect to their sciences. And besides, I don't know why we're talking about politics. Humanism has nothing to do with that. I was just using an example. Sorry, got signed out there for a second. Signing comment. Bulldog123 17:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not proposing a list of laureates by era, I'm proposing that these lists reflect the fact that the Nobel Prize is political in nature, and the 20th century was an age defined by its intermingling of religion and politics. I'm proposing we stop pretending that religion doesn't matter or didn't matter. Humanism has tons to do with politics--wow! KP Botany 17:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but your argument is definitely out of the scope of this article, and feels like it is more for the Village Pump discussions than here. You know, a call to "stop pretending like religion doesn't matter" really doesn't help assess these lists speficially. Bulldog123 21:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and as improper intersections; and kudos to the nom for nominating all of these together. Carlossuarez46 17:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list of Jewish Nobel laureates. I don't know about the other ones, but this intersection has been discussed in a very large number of mainstream publications. nadav (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Neutral(/Don't know anything about) on the other lists. nadav (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nadav, do you have no comment on the remainder or is it an assumed delete? Also, from my experience of researching the publications that do mention Jewish Nobels, which are mainly non-mainstream, they are more "mentions" than discussions, usually used as an example of overrepresentation per overall population. However, underrepresentation is even more prevalently covered by mainstream publications, such as the underrepresentation of African-Americans and Asians for their numbers. Especially women. There's also the most prevalent publications on White people dominating Nobel Prizes, and brings up the most important questions of eurocentrism etc. However, none of these intersections exist and I don't believe they ever will (unless someone WP:POINT them right now), so I don't think just having mentions of an intersection in some plaes qualify it for retention. Bulldog123 21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, the discussions in sources are usually about pointing out there are surprisingly many Jewish Nobel prize winners. In Israel and Jewish publications, as perhaps is expected, this appears in the mainstream. We also have an article Ashkenazi intelligence for which this list should be an important related article. nadav (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite what Bulldog123 said in creating this AfD, the lists don't have to reflect that people won the prize for works tied in with their religious/political beliefs/ethnicity. As it says at Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lists_of_people, "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category." Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter are well-known Noble Peace Prize winners who are also well-known Christians. Albert Einstein was a cultural Zionist who had to flee Germany b/c he was Jewish. In addition, as it states at Wikipedia:List_guideline#Purpose_of_lists:

Lists have three main purposes:

Information: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.
Navigation: Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind, they would likely use the See also lists. If the user has a specific research goal in mind, and there is only one or two words that are used to describe the research topic, and they know exactly how to spell the word, they would probably use the search engine box. If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).
Development: Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space.

All of these lists meet the three criteria of this guideline for existance. They should therefore be kept.--Alabamaboy 20:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - That's a lot of words, Bama, but it ultimately says nothing. Precedents generally don't support your interpretation. Plenty of people understand what it means to be a non-notable intersection, and for those that don't, I'm not going to bother reiterating over and over. A good example of your view of lists and intersections isn't wide-held is the fact that List of Catholic American entertainers, as well as numerous other religion/occupation lists ...like List of Hindu sportspeopIe met with almost unanimous consensus to delete for the same reasons I give here. Finally, I'd appreciate if you'd also stop wikistalking AfDs I nominate after the Medal of Honor debates. You rarely contribute to AfDs and yet have managed to contribute to all of my most recent ones with references personally directed to me. Please stop. Thanks. Bulldog123 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Wikistalking? I have a strong interest in deleting articles (having personally deleted a couple of thousand of them) and I keep track of AfDs. I rarely comment b/c I usually don't disagree with the reasons for deleting articles and have little desire to pile onto a deletion discussion. The problem is that you have brought up several AfDs (and one large group of CfDs) which are of interest to me and, I believe, were attempting to be deleted for invalid reasons. Lists like these around the Nobel Prizes are valid. I should also note that the consensus on the AfDs I joined the discussion on was to Keep. If you bring up AfDs on articles and lists needing to be deleted, I have no disagreement (such as List of Hindu mathematicians, which I see from your contributions you placed a prod template on; I agree with this b/c the list isn't notable and isn't much of a list). But do not accuse me of Wikistalking when I simply disagree with your rationale for an AfD.--Alabamaboy 22:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that these lists are fine because of....Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lists_of_people....whatever that's supposed to me, but agree that a list of mathematicians listed arbitrarily for their religion somehow isn't fine really doesn't make any sense, but ok. Bulldog123 05:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please stop the personal attacks. By accusing Alabamaboy of wikistalking you are taking the situation to a personal level and this not a forum for such behavier. Alabamaboy is a very capable administrator and as such he and everyone else in the community are entitled to express themselves on every AfD or CfD in a civil manner. Bulldog, I suggest that you limit your discussions to the topic and nothing else and that this CfD be conducted in a civil manner as required by policy. Tony the Marine 03:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a coincidence that you and Bama show up on this AfD to pick fights and not on the dozens of others that are nominated for the same reason. But I'll drop it if you drop it. Bulldog123 05:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ethnicity and religion are important. As long as there is evidence for such lists they should be kept. In may other lists divided on similar grounds, the people were not so very famous that there was always information to support the lists, and there would inevitably be only partial and always contentious. That is not the case here--there is sufficient biographical information of all, and the lists serve a useful purpose--people are interested in these. Therefore meets all the qualifications for lists. DGG 04:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to talk about content, all the lists are severely unsourced by reliable sources, and some have been highly controversial for their inclusionism. The Christian, Jewish, and Humanist ones are greenhouses for original research. What do you mean by "evidence" for such lists? The lists are very contentious. There is no evidence 90% of the people would identify this way, especially the living ones. Bulldog123 05:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This isn't a reason for deletion. Please reread the criteria for deletion. Also, add the references tags to the lists, if you think they need it, which is the action to take under those circumstances. KP Botany 20:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And it isn't my reason for deletion, which you should know. But it's certainly an incentive to delete. Bulldog123 07:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Bulldog123 complains about the the unreliability of the sourcing of these lists and then goes on to state that "there is no evidence 90% of the people would identify this way, especially the living ones." What exactly is the source for that assertion? If we examine a representative sample of living individuals from the List of Jewish Nobel laureates - e.g., the thirty-five still-living prize winners from the period 1995-2006, we find that the autobiographies on Nobelprize.org [1] of twenty-two (Kroto, Kohn, Heeger, Ciechanover, Hershko, Rose, Akerlof, Kahneman, Aumann, Kertész, Perl, Reines, Lee, Osheroff, Cohen-Tannoudji, Ginzburg, Gross, Prusiner, Greengard, Kandel, Brenner, and Horvitz) explicitly mention their Jewish backgrounds. Interviews with five others (Kornberg, Abrikosov, Jelinek, Pinter, and Furchgott) referenced on the JINFO.ORG website [2] also contain explicit acknowledgements of their Jewish backgrounds. So, altogether, the Jewish backgrounds of twenty-seven of the thirty-five (77%) can be trivially verified from their own words. Is that what you call "no evidence"? Jinfo 01:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The simple and most obvious response is: there's an obvious difference between admitting Jewish ancestry and self-identifying as Jewish. Osheroff, Akerlof, Kroto, Jelinek, Abrikosov stress that only part of their family stems from Jewish lines instead of simply saying that they're Jewish. Many of the others you cite write the information half-assedly, usually in no more than one sentence, and almost exclusively the Jewish identification is given to their parents. And to acknowledge that some are very very self-identifying, there are people like Kandel. But still, for a huge majority, there's no evidence to suggest self-identification on any of the lists, not just the Jewish one. Bulldog123 07:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep no substantive reason for deletion under current standards was provided. list is notable and useful.--Buridan 10:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable attributes. Tonganoxie Jim. 24.60.163.16 20:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as completely arbitrary and almost indefinable attribute. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unsourced and likely unsourcable for many Nobelists; non-notable intersection. —David Eppstein 00:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too POV-weigthy, and irrelevant categorization. Circeus 01:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. POV-weighty, mostly irrelevant, of no real encyclopedic value Sleep On It 15:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the note that User:Sleep On It is essentially a Wikipedia account created for deleting articles should be kept--the more people are aware of what goes on in AfD, with editors making articles bad, then nominating for deletion, adding irrelevant arguments, attacking those opposing them, the less likely it will ultimately have a bad impact on Wikipedia. KP Botany 23:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and useless. JJL 23:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.