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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish Nobel laureates[edit]

List of Jewish Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination), this article was to be deleted. The consensus was to delete all such lists. It was recreated without any deletion review discussion and the issues outlined at that deletion discussion are not addressed in the recreation of the content. It appears that the Wikipedians who commented on the last discussion were not aware of this previous discussion. The appropriate thing to do is remove this list from articlespace, clean it up, and then bring this list to WP:DRV for recreation. That is what is occurring at User:Bharatiya29/List of Hindu Nobel laureates which is the appropriate solution. If someone would like the list userfied, that would be acceptable to me. There, he or she could work on the real problems associated with WP:NOR, WP:BLP and WP:RNPOV that are being violated here and once those problems are fixed we can have a proper discussion about whether the proposed content is encyclopedic. jps (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The decision for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates (December 2010) postdates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination) (July 2007), so the latter is no longer relevant. The 2010 decision was no consensus. Therefore, the rationale for this debate should be more specific about how the list is violating various policies. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2007 AfD is superseded by the 2010 AfD on this specific article, so it has no bearing on this discussion. Alansohn (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Praytell, how does "no consensus" supersede a documented consensus? jps (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why wouldn't it? A no consensus is an equally valid decision, and more recent decisions are more valid because Wikipedia's policies have developed over time. At the time of the 2007 decision was made, there was no notability criterion for stand-alone lists (see this version of Wikipedia:Notability). RockMagnetist(talk) 18:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see that WP:NOTESAL ever came into consideration during the "no consensus" discussion. I have never heard someone argue that a discussion which was closed as "no consensus" actually could overturn a consensus. That's a completely new one to me! If you think that notability rules have changed to become more inclusive of lists that try to identify people's religions, go ahead and say that. I don't see much evidence for it. jps (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The only relevant question here is if Nobel Prize laureates are identified in the real world by their shared Jewish religion and the evidence is that they are, both as individuals and as a group. Burton Feldman's The Nobel Prize: A History of Genius, Controversy, and Prestige, appendices are provided listing and grouping by country, by women, by family and Jewish laureates; no other religious scheme is identified, and we do identify Nobel laureates by nation, by sex and by family. In "Interview: Richard Dawkins Keeps Making New Enemies; The famed atheist talks about the Pope, fiction, and why Jews win Nobel Prizes", an interview of Richard Dawkins published in The Atlantic, Dawkins notes at length that "I should have compared religion with religion and compared Islam not with Trinity College but with Jews, because the number of Jews who have won Nobel Prizes is phenomenally high.' and "... I don’t think it is a minor thing; it is colossal. I think more than 20 percent of Nobel Prizes have been won by Jews". The David Duke web site points to The Jewish Bias of the Nobel Prize, which documents the phenomenon. I could also point to the dozens of sources available online showing "Jewish Nobel laureates" as a real-world means of categorization, but the more than 250 sources included in the article should stand as further evidence. It seems that people of all religions join atheists and anti-Semites in recognizing this as an appropriate grouping mechanism. Alansohn (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. Anyone who uses David Duke as an argument to keep this page should be dismissed out of hand and probably indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. WP:BADSITES indeed! jps (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Settle down, jps. Alansohn is a reliable and diligent editor who works on geography. He seems to have googled around to discover how widepresd the Jewish Nobel Prize lists are, and I suspect that Duke googles well (alas). Alansohn may not have even known who David Duke is. Or he may have been citing Duke as an extreme example. I prefer to WP:AGF. We all tend to write carelessly at times.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it is unreasonable to ask people not to base their arguments on David Duke and to completely discount anyone who bases their arguments for keeping content on Wikipedia on a source written by David Duke. jps (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alansohn was making the quite reasonable point that even anti-Semites recognise this as a category, as well as atheists and people of various religions. Of course David Duke would not be an appropriate source for article content, but it is perfectly valid to mention him in a discussion. 86.24.88.241 (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My scholarly reason for voting KEEP is that there is a burgeoning body of research supporting the idea that the cultural tradition in which an individual is reared have an impact on what an individual does adult life on many levels, including the production of ideas. i.e., your ethnic heritage may have an impact on whether you are likely to engage in the kind of thought production that wins a Nobel Prize. I do not see that this body of work was discussed in the 2007 debate. My more straightforward reason is that the world has moved on, Wikipedia has long included articles on Muslim and of Hindu prize winners. Makes it hard to delete the article on Jewish ones. I am also persuaded by User:Alansohn's point, the lists and articles on the predominance of Jews among winners of the Nobel Prizes makes this a topic of patent and demonstrable significance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, we are currently discussing every single list of Nobel laureates based on WP:CAT/R arguments. The last time we had an omnibus discussion on the subject, the consensus was to delete all. It may be that consensus changed, but we have the firm opportunity now to either confirm or deny the outcome of the previous discussion. jps (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are many hundred publications which mention "Jewish Nobel Prize winners" in Google books alone [1]. Why can't we have a page about it? This could be even a regular page. The criteria for creating lists are less strict. Here, it would be enough to have a "notable intersection" of two categories, which we also have. The nominator did not provide any arguments why such list would not be appropriate for encyclopedia.My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources such as this indicate that the topic passes WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There was another discussion of this list in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim Nobel Laureates with a no consensus decision in March 2012. I have added it in a somewhat awkward fashion to the box at the top. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Been there done that. Scholarly subject matter as established ad nauseum here and in prior afd's. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable and properly sourced. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it's an important part of Jewish history and world history, many books written about this topic, and it's all backed up by WP:N & WP:RS. IZAK (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the arguments by My very best wishes seem convincing here. Dorpater (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not us making the call about whether or not to discuss this thing, it's the sources, so it's not original synthesis. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable topic and there been a several studies about it.--Jobas (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with proposer the WP policies appear to support the article's form and the above arguments opposing all are saying basically the same thing, that the article is consistent with WP guidelines. The article falls short on at least one glaring misconception. It is an accepted convention today that one's religion is that which has been professed or announced. A great number of the subjects of the article make/made no such revelation and on the talk page numerous examples have been raised of laureates who maintained no personal connection or interest with Judaism. The verified content is misleading as the statements used for reference are in the main assumptions based on ancestry. The article content does not address this confusion except for a footnote, rather it repeatedly courts controversy by failing to clearly define its subject area.--Mevagiss (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2015 (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.