Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (3rd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The argument that this is original research (or unverifiable due to lack of sources) with respect to most of the people listed here is very strong. The "keep" opinions are weak in that they maintain that the article could be improved, but per WP:BURDEN it would have been up to them to actually make the necessary improvements.  Sandstein  07:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of atheist Nobel laureates

AfDs for this article:
List of atheist Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was one of seven lists nominated for deletion last week under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim Nobel Laureates; the result was "no consensus ... for a deletion of all of them together". Consequently, I'm renominating only this one, which appears to be one of the more problematic lists in that nomination. Although this list's title says it is about atheist Nobel laureates, the first sentence says that it includes not only atheists, but those who self-identified as "agnostic, nonbeliever, or secular spiritual". Thus, the conflict between the title and the scope is likely to misrepresent some of the listed people. All but two of the names on the list are completely unsourced and no indication is given as to whether the individual specifically considered himself or herself to be atheist, agnostic, or what. One of the names that is sourced is Albert Einstein, yet this article also says that Einstein rejected the label "atheist".

Several of the other names listed are likely to be inaccurate as well. For example, Naguib Mahfouz is on the list, yet this profile of Mahfouz at the official Nobel Prize website refers to him as "a pious Moslem believer".

Ferid Murad, also on the list, discussed his religious background in his autobiography submitted to the Nobel Foundation, writing, "[M]y brothers and I grew up with considerable freedom .... This was also applied to our religious choices as my father was Muslim, my mother Baptist and we were raised in a Catholic community. Subsequently, my brothers became Catholic when they married Catholic wives and I was baptized Episcopalian in college. My wife of more than forty years is Presbyterian, two of our daughters married Jewish men and one married a Catholic man." Considering this discussion of all the religious persuasions among his relatives, one would expect that Murad would have mentioned it if he had since become an atheist, but he says nothing along that line.

Yet another name on this list is Étienne-Émile Baulieu. Whether he is an atheist or not, I have no idea, but he doesn't belong on the list anyway because he has not won a Nobel Prize. Consequently, I recommend deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • By the way, I note that the 2nd nomination of this article back in 2007 ended in a delete; the article was re-created only 10 days ago. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though you seem sensible!it seems your nomination is again going to start a bad debate and lots of bad arguments like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, rather you should give warning for bad logics and few sources used in the list,atheists are always obsessed with Einstein and so,it's not new,however,he should not be here and should be deleted anyway!you should focus on sources and their impartiality, rather than deleting the article altogether.By the way, I am neutral in this case!Skashifakram (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These lists run into a problem with WP:SYN since other sources have not, AFAIK, made an issue of Nobel winners' religions. This one especially seems to have problems. For instance I clicked on Anatole France. His article does not say he was an atheist. BigJim707 (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW many scientists living in the Soviet Union and other communist countries have won. They were, of course, required to support atheism to keep their jobs. But we have no way to know what they really thought. BigJim707 (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am more than convinced, if during the discussions, the problem with poor sources remain, we have to delete the article, we can't let it pass without reliable sources.Skashifakram (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I regret to say I have found insufficient time to work more on this article and that it is currently under consideration for deletion. I have created User:Pereant_antiburchius/List_of_atheist_Nobel_laureates in my own userspace to work on it further, because I cannot improve this article in a reasonable timespan without further help. If the article is more ready for prime time, I'll recreate it. --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Although not independent, search results on The Official Web Site of the Nobel Prize itself shows that some recipients addressed it directly in their acceptance or later remarks. While religion is not a criteria for the award, this grouping (and the related religious articles) show that it is their work they are awarded for, the Nobel Committee either not discriminating for or against any, as opposed to criticism of it for perceived language bias in literature, for example. Dru of Id (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Paul D. Boyer is quoting Harold Kroto, and a reviewer is stating how Jean-Paul Sartre's The Flies helped the reviewer understand their own atheism, not a declaration of Sartre's own. Dru of Id (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dru, you have to understand,we are not opposed to keeping this article if reliable sources are available, the references given are contestable as well as naming of the table.People are playing Richard Dawkins' game to include all irreligious and nontheistic people in Atheist category,which is an unnecessary misuse of the term Atheism.Skashifakram (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand that, having followed the previous bundled nomination, although I did not participate, not having looked into it at all. In their own words, on the Nobel prize site, are as reliable as possible, unless someone can show otherwise (hacked, misrepresented, misattributed), although I noted not independent. While unnecessary (and unencyclopedic), it is a common failing of "other" that less frequently occurring things are often grouped together, which can be addessed in the introduction, retitled, or separated, which are content issues, none of which require deletion. Dru of Id (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metropoliton, your concern has already been dealt with, so please have your say in the ongoing discussionSkashifakram (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creators of the article are requested to fix the title-content issue as soon as possible,this will help to lessen the chance of deletion of the article and have your say on Einstein's atheism on talkpage!Skashifakram (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research WP:NOR. Nor does the list seem to have a neutral point of view WP:NPOV --User:Warrior777 (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clicked at random on Jane Addams, Ludwig Quidde and Wole Soyinka: none of the articles mentions atheism. This is Original Research and should go.  Tigerboy1966  00:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after you remove the unsourced names, and einsteins, you have 7 or 8 people. grouping agnostics with atheists makes the inclusion criteria too vague. if its "list of atheists" it should be avowe atheists, even if forced to avow it. 8 is a trivially small number, not deserving of a list. if the article creator or anyone else wants to painstakingly research all the laureates, add comments on their religion to their article, then recreate this if its not a trivial number, fine.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think references should be two-fold,wheter list entries are actual Nobel Laureates and whether they are avowed atheists,the article should be retitled List of Nontheist Nobel Laureates comprising agnostic and atheist Nobel Laureates.Thank you....Skashifakram (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Imo the title itself smacks of POV: I'd expect it on conservopedia. There might be a case for an article listing Nobel Laureates & their beliefs. If you allow this stand-alone article there is the risk of a multitude of silly pages, such as a list of Nobel winners who skateboard or are Anabaptists.TheLongTone (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are about 70 names on the list. I have looked at all the articles. Most do not mention atheism. Some mention the topic ambiguously: others mention the topic but lack references. I found only nine where there was a properly sourced, unequivocal statement that the subject was atheist. There is even more "Original Research" (to be polite) going on here than I thought.  Tigerboy1966  09:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl.brown (talk • contribs) 04:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Einstein rejected the personal God of Judaism and Christianity, but he also stated "I believe in Spinoza's God" and "I'm not an atheist." There is a whole book on his religious beliefs: he was not an atheist. Similar problems arise with other people on the list with nonstandard religious beliefs. -- 202.124.74.183 (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The four nominations for this article, and the two mass nominations, prove that forum shopping WP:FORUMSHOP is not only alive but thriving on WP, and that there is an unreconcilable contradiction between WP:OTHERSTUFF and the citing of previous deletions of articles. Anarchangel (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve. Others and myself have put effort into improving the sourcing of this article. Although I agree further improvement can be made, at this point, deletion seems a step to far. --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve. The nomination demonstrates only that the page currently contains inadequately sourced information. No one has really demonstrated that a proper page could not be created, after revision. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While the sourcing improvements are positive, they do not address the confused scope ("atheist, agnostic, nonbeliever or secular spiritual"). These are not at all the same thing (a person may be a nonbeliever in the dominant religion of his/her milieu while still having religious beliefs), and several people on the list (like Einstein) indeed had their own religious beliefs (often some form of Pantheism). Secular spirituality in particular seems to overlap with Buddhism. Furthermore, although the lede restricts membership to "self-identified" atheists, the sources in many cases simply reflect labelling by somebody else. A fundamental difficulty is that gaining a religion generally involves joining an organisation, while many atheists take no overt self-identifying action. This makes the list inherently WP:SYNTH in nature. -- 202.124.74.183 (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a trivial intersection with probably unsolvable OR problems. That this has been the subject of several prior deletion discussions makes the charge of forum shopping prima facie plausible but a closer look shows that they aren't really terribly relevant. This was kept as no consensus in 2007, deleted as part of a mass nom of laureates by religion in 2009 and kept as part of a no consensus close of a mass nom just this past week with leave to refile separately as is common in mass noms where the element in common turns out to be less dispositive than the nominator thought. The common thread I see running through the discussions is a lack of consensus among the Wikipedia community as to whether lists of Nobel Laureates by religion are appropriate at all, combined with particular concerns that a list of atheist/irreligious winners is particularly difficult to circumscribe and source. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_atheist_Nobel_laureates_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1138003935"