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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. After discounting those suffering from paranoia, lack of reasoning or unfamiliarity with AfD, being an IP or bein around solely to participate in AfD, I get 21d-12k. That is fractionally below two-thirds, and I'm not persuaded that the keepers arguments (where they exist) are so much weaker than the deleters as to warrant lowering the baseline threshold. -Splash^talk 18:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society[edit]

First nomination

• Strong Delete Without a doubt, this is one of the most extreme cases of listmania. I'd nominate List of Fellows of the Royal Society for deletion just as quick as this, but seeing as it doesn't exist...this needs to go 65.10.7.150 00:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you given an AfD to Category:Fellows of the Royal Society? If not, why not? - Londoneye 22:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as with other random collections of personal religion with unrelated professional achievement. Durova 02:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being Jewish is not just a religion. CalJW 02:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Random lists of ethnicity and profession are equally non-notable in most cases. Pioneers in a previously closed field would be notable. A list of the first African-American major league baseball players by team would be notable. A list of the thousands who played subsequently is non-notable. Durova 14:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Would have been marginal, but your extremist comment tips the balance of my decision. Notable evidence of the acceptance of jews by a very important British organisation. CalJW 02:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you base your vote on the quality of the article and not on the quality of the review. Denni ☯ 06:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a good policy - easy enough to improve the quality of an article, but not if it's been deleted. - Londoneye 22:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Was there ever a time when the Royal Society didn't elect Jews? If there was it is long past, and this list is as useful as the List of Jewish bus drivers. Pilatus 03:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, if you look at the list it will tell you who the first Jewish fellow was. See how useful this list is? There are several Jewish FRSs with articles about them - how many bus drivers (Jewish or otherwise) have Wiki articles? - Londoneye 22:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. List fails to establish the significance of being Jewish in this context. In fact the list is so long it renders itself non-notable by quantity. If there had been, say, a half-dozen over the years and the introduction to the article had made a good, NPOV case for why we should care, then OK. 23skidoo 05:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pilatus. --Metropolitan90 06:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. Edwardian 06:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Dottore So 08:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ditto Marcus22 12:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CalJW. Arniep 12:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pilatus. Nandesuka 12:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above, Jewishness is not a criteria on which to select from a list of prize recipients jnothman ^talk 13:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 23skidoo. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep — A list of accomplished scientists belonging to the Jewish faith appears quite encyclopedic to me. An individual of that faith looking for a suitable role model would find this very interesting. This nomination is PC-ness run amuck. — RJH 16:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not Catholic Olympic Gold Medal recipients? Why not Armenian grand master chess players? Why not Russian recipients of the Nobel Prize? This is an arbitrary overlap of two groups, with no link between the two. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In case you haven't noticed, there is a Category:Armenian chess players. Are you going to propose its deletion? - RachelBrown 21:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not Catholic Olympic Gold Medal recipients indeed. What of it? If the examples you have listed have three or more valid members, I wouldn't vote against it. — RJH
    • Must be loads of Catholic Olympic Gold Medal recipients; I've identified three just in the men's 1500m: Luigi Beccali, Josy Barthel and Ron Delany - RachelBrown 18:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Armenia is a country and it's common here to categorize people by their nationality. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Armenian chess player list is more an ethnic list - certainly in British law, Jews are regarded as an ethnic group - RachelBrown 18:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Why do so many people want to delete lists of Jews? The fact that there are several such lists, many of which are frequently edited, shows that many in the Wiki community want them. Everyone on this list is an important person or they wouldn't be there. RachelBrown 17:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you missed today's AfDs for three or four lists of Roman Catholics? It's not lists of Jews people want deleted: it's lists that categorise people by religion. — Haeleth Talk 17:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I recall Wikipedians are disproportionately irreligious. I think the idea a religion actually is important to many people even in their choice of careers is almost frightening to some people. If you've noticed in cases when it's purely an ethnic group no one talks much of how "these lists divide people into groups and that's wrong." That said this seems too specific so I don't support it either. "List of Catholics" or "List of Greeks" in some Royal Society would also strike me as odd.--T. Anthony 03:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What ticks me off is how the people on these votes always assume "antisemitic" intentions. People are deleting lists based on the fact that the lists are just plain over-reaching and redundant. If there was a list of Muslim Fellows of the Royal Society or list of Left-Handed Fellows of the Royal Society I'd vote for those too. It just happens that the Jew lists are most frequently the ones with over-reaching categorizations. As Haeleth stated above, a bunch of other religion-based lists are being deleted. Antidote 18:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot equate these jewish lists with other religions as other religions are not also ethnicities or diasporas. Arniep 18:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People who are members of the Royal Society ALL deserve to be there regardless of ethnicity etc.. IMHO to make a distinction along the lines of "jewish", "catholic", "afro-american" or whatever else is, if anything, to reinforce such divisions. In each case, it is more likely to encourage things like anti-semitism etc.. For me, the only mark that counts is that we are all people. In this case, all members of the RS. Marcus22 18:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a glib defence to turn the argument round and claim that all people for retention are saying that all those for deletion are anti-semitic. I'm making no such claim; I have no doubt that many of those arguing for deletion are sincere, albeit misguided. - RachelBrown 21:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote against lists of Kurdish members of the Royal Society and Tibetan nationalist members of the Royal Society too. Durova 23:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Durova --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 22:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this article has already been debated and there was no vote for deletion. Why was it proposed again? - Londoneye 22:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we could produce endless lists of people of category x, who happen to be in category y. Unless the connection between the categories is significant, then delete. --Doc ^ask? 22:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's an arbitrary division of a group. -- Kjkolb 23:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Listcruft: there's no connection between Jewishness and fellowship in the Royal Society. --Carnildo 23:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There probably is - in recent times, the % of Jewish Fellows has been far higher than the % of Jews in the general population. - Poetlister 23:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - my above note shows one use of this list. Do people want to hide the fact that Jews are disproportionately found among the most eminent scientists? - Poetlister 23:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No more than I want to hide the proportion of African-American players in baseball or the proportion of homosexuals in theater. An essay describing such a phenomenon might be encyclopedic. A mere list doesn't demonstrate proportionality. Durova 00:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before you can do an analytical essay, you need some statistics - how will you produce those without a good database? - Poetlister 19:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you voted to delete Category:LGBT musicians or List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers? - RachelBrown 11:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is this? If I vote against keeping a list of Little Green Men who were Fellows of the Royal Society are people going to say "hey, why are you trying to hide the fact that Little Green Men are disproportionately found amongst the most eminent scientists"?! Please note: No-one is trying to hide anything here. No-one is singling out jews. People are just voting on whether or not this list, like others, is of encyclopedic merit. Is that really so hard to grasp? Marcus22 11:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody queries that some lists are of encyclopaedic merit - see my comment just above. The question is whether this particular list isn't when others are. Is that really so hard to grasp? - RachelBrown 11:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And what did you mean by this comment? "Why do so many people want to delete lists of Jews?" Marcus22 12:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ejrrjs | [[User talk:Ejrrjs|What?]] 07:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although I prefer to just have a list of all the fellows, I can't deny that someone's religion has an effect on their scientific views. So listing scientists by religion or ethnicity is not as useless as most of these lists are. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia. Radiant_>|< 12:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, LazarKr 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. And a second nomination so soon after the first failed is bad faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly the above voter is not familiar with the rules of a renomination for delete. If there was no consensus on the prior vote, then one is allowed to create a renomination much sooner than if the decision was "keep." Antidote 21:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Antidote your remark is disingenuous. The policy states: An exception can be made if a discussion has no consensus and a severe lack of contributors. 13 votes in the last round hardly qualifies as severe. Further, the previous outcome looks borderline Keep to me given Strong Delete voting by anoms. --JJay 21:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, like in the last vote, I believe this article provides a useful and easily accessible resource. Evil Eye 22:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Royal Society is an important institution in Britain, the list shows how jewish people have made very important contribution to science. JBH 22:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This vote was JBH's 11th edit (first edit November 18, 2005). Almost all other edits are in support of lists that were nominated for deletion--Bob ^talk 15:14, November 18, 2005 (UTC)

This means that JBH is not a "keep everything" fanatic and genuinely thinks this is a useful list worth keeping - RachelBrown 09:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the user is implying is that this might be a double-voter --- and I think your attempt to hide that won't work. Antidote 20:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't attempting to hide anything; the suggestion is offensive. - RachelBrown 20:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There seems to be less problems with the deletions on the Roman Catholic lists. EscapeArtistsNeverDie 01:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews, when if anyone delete, please tell my talk page. --Sheynhertz_געשׁ״ך 07:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is almost as usless as a list of 5'6 people- Molloy

I'm 5'6 - Londoneye 21:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Extremely Strong Keep: I tend to always vote delete on these lists, but something about this renom smacks of bad faith, thus have to support the contributing editors. Given the outcome of the previous debate, where is the urgency to delete this? Arguments on keep side also convincing enough to justify adding extremely--JJay 08:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• VERY STRONG KEEP!!! I think that the anon who nominated this list is a trouble maker! He is reported to be a sockpuppet who also listed List of Roman Catholics for deletion, then he voted under the other user address to delete that list. He obviously knows how to use Wikipedia so why does this person choose to nominate and vote as an anon. I assume it is so that he can also vote again under the username he most likely has. Lets nip this in the bud right now! Plank 03:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on this page isn't about anonymous IP voting like so many people assume - it's about the page itself - voting to keep a list just on the principle that it was an anon vote (which is allowed ANYWAY) does not take into account the real reasons why this list should be deleted and is frankly immature. Antidote 04:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given the sensitivities involved in the list topics being nominated, I intend to start voting Strong Keep for all anonymous noms. Call me immature. Cheers --JJay 04:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this list probably wasn't deleted during the first try was because, like now, people took it too seriously and worried too much about "offending" others than actually analyzing the list. There has been a history of DELETE votes for these type of lists. See List of Jewish Members of the French Academy of Sciences, List of Jewish Members of the French Academy of Sciences. This is the only one left that was made for a nationality (Brits - in some way). As you showed us above, some voters just choose a hysterical "keep!!!!!!!!!1" without really looking at the reasons for deletion (of which there are numrous). Antidote 04:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I could care less about offending someone with my votes and I also don't think I've ever voted Keep for any list on VfD. I reiterate my comment above. The anonymous nom and anonymous lobbying on my talk page for a recent VfD close call on an apparently sensitive topic bothers me. If that is immature and hysterical I stand accused. --JJay 04:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You continually reiterate that you voted on this list based on how you "felt" on the subject, and not on the real reasons for deletion. Also, please stop using my words "immature" and "hyserical" out of context. Antidote 04:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"a nationality (Brits - in some way)" - an interesting remark. If they're Fellows, they're British citizens, so why qualify it with "in some way" - aren't Jews who are British citizens as much Brits as anyone else? Actually, this isn't just restricted to Brits; nearly half the list are foreign members. - 86.129.89.139 13:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 86.129.89.139 13:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Another example of what should be a Category and not an Article. Listmania.  RasputinAXP  T C 16:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too detailed. 72.144.71.234 05:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete arbitrary list which fails to establish why its criteria should be considered important. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 09:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - hard to find a list with clearer criteria - Fellow (or Foreign Member) of possibly the World's most prestigious scientific society. Being on this list is widely considered to be second only to having a Nobel Prize. I have had the privilege of discussing this with someone who is on this list, and he considers it a valuable record. - Taxwoman 23:29, 26 November 2005 (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.