Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates

Add links
From 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 No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 13:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of atheist Nobel laureates

[edit]
List of atheist Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article does not merit inclusion for the following reasons:

  • Aye, that should've been deleted as well. It is too recent a nomination to renominate at this time; wait until August, then renominate all the Nobel Laureate religion lists individually. We can whittle them down much easier that way. --Hemlock Martinis 22:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're not all religion lists, though I suppose they could be interpreted as such. Humanist is more of a philosophy and Jewish could be interpreted as an ethnicity, but I think regardless of religion, ethnicity, or belief system, they are all WP:OCAT#Irrelevant intersections, just in a list form. It that doesn't do anything but give a random selection of names; if it was more of an article it could barely pass. Bulldog123 22:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As a category, it would fail WP:OC as a Non-notable intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Chubbles 20:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then try to delete them first. Look if you guys are interested in deletiong those articles, then all should be deleted at once. Otherwise, none should be deleted. RS 03:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment above argument is good example of (illegitimate) argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. By the way, I agree the other articles should go - the information is more suitable for categor(y/ies) per Chubbles, I agree that a category of this type is overcategorisation.. Bigdaddy1981 03:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would reiterate here my belief that, as a category, it would still fail as a Non-notable intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Chubbles 03:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the argument that this list is a non-notable intersection of characteristics. It also looks like POV-pushing. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep IMO, these should all go, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, an essay not a guideline or policy, contains an exception for singling out one of several equivalents: "Wikipedia recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS). Sometimes the nomination of one of a series of articles that have relatively equal merit would further the bias (e.g., deletion of Fooian this but not XYZian this if XYZian represents the majoritarian culture at Wikipedia." I would think that atheist, Hindu, Jewish Christian, and Muslim nobelists are all potential equivalent articles to rise or fall together to avoid bias. Carlossuarez46 23:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there may be different arguments to be offered for the lists - in particular, the Jewish list, because I think there may actually be a significant body of published work on specifically Jewish Nobel winners. The same is not so, as far as I am aware, of the other religions, and as I said, if I am wrong about that, I will withdraw a nomination. However, I think each case should be decided individually depending on the existence of prior published works on the religion/Nobel combination. Chubbles 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, apples and oranges. Corvus cornix 17:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, far better sourced than List of Humanist Nobel laureates. -- Petri Krohn 01:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete their religion or lack thereof will typically have no bearing on the work that won them the Nobel prize. Quite a ridiculous over categorisation. ViridaeTalk 03:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

[edit]
  • Delete or Redirect The creator of the list strongly states that his intention is to promote his belief system, atheism.[1] "I am an atheist. I don't believe in the existence of God. I would like to promote atheism in the Wikipedia." The list is merely a reflection of one editor's belief system, and his desire to find others with similar belief systems, and Wikipedia is hardly the place. I think enthusiasm is wonderful, but again, the place to develop your brotherhood of atheism is not Wikipedia, and creating Wikipedia articles for this purpose and celebrating each and every declaration of shared brotherhood on an article's talk page is just too much, imo. In addition the editor has no issues about doing original research to come up with who's an atheist or who's a nontheist and who isn't, it's a matter of the editor's opinion and desire to include some particular person into the brotherhood (Emphasis added throughout is mine):
[2] "The father of father of modern computer science is in the List of atheists!! I am adding the name of Alan Turing in the List of atheists. Yes! He is considered as the father of modern computer science! Great!"
Einstein is apparently a nontheist based upon this editor's personal conclusions and original research into the matter, "Well, I had discussions with a teacher of Physics about the faith of Einstein. I also studied about the religious views of Einstein. My conclusions are: The faith of Einstein has nothing to do with the faith of Christians, Jews or Muslims. Einstein had a faith in the rationality of nature."[3]
  • But no bad guys can be atheists, only good guys, because adding bad guys to a personal brotherhood would make it seem, well, more human, I guess, so Mussolini can't be an atheist, no matter what any sources say:
[4] "Benito Mussolini was not an atheist. The two sources in the article that call Mussolini an atheist are pro-Roman Catholic. Fools like John Pollard should be punished for trying to demonize atheism. The website (see orginal) is a Catholic website. These two ridiculous, nonsense and stupid website should be removed. And, of course, Benito Mussolini was a Roman Catholic. I have found two reliable sources which shows Mussolini was religious...."
  • So, when articles are written by editors desiring something other than an encyclopedia article, namely a sense of belonging, and they allow their needs to be put ahead of the Wikipedia guidelines for articles, to the extent of calling everything that says anything against them stupid, and calling other editor's comments stupid and nonsense when they don't support the editor's search for belonging,[5] along with celebrating anything that can be used for them, it makes it tough for other editors and users of the encyclopedia. I think deletion is the right way to go at this time for this list. With a more reasonable editing system, that doesn't include berating other editors and personal research that is heavily biased towards those Nobel Prize winners who personally appeal to the author (a concern considering the Musolini comments, although I'm pretty sure he didn't win one....), this might be an appropriate list. KP Botany 03:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KPB, if you have any problem with me visit my talk page. RS 03:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have blocked User:Devraj5000 for a 3RR violation in removing User:KP Botany's comments. The block is the standard 24 hours. --Hemlock Martinis 04:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, along with the other lists too- crusading on behalf of a cause produces problems with reliability in these types of articles and requires OR conclusions that will be debated endlessly. They do not show any correlation between the award and those that are placed on the lists as winners of those awards and thus each list is not explicitly promoting a conclusion that is referenced, its a back handed attempt to promote an OR conclusion. Hardyplants 04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article should be deleted only if other similar lists are deleted. R-1441 04:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC) — R-1441 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep, Categories are great and need to be used more often. Many lists on wikipedia can be solved with the use of categories. This one though is an exception, I believe. I think this because atheism is a heated subject here in america. And I have seen heated debates over including/removing various people under/from the rubric Atheist. The reason I think this article should stay is that it has a very well researched reference section. This reference section helps insulate edit wars by providing real support from one's inclusion in this list/category. I can see that the majority of people have voted delete and the article will most likely be deleted. I have also seen someone say they will, excuse me are considering, nominating other such articles for deletion if this one passes. I implore you to either nominate all the articles together or if the other nominations do not pass reinstate this article. As for duplicating that other list, this list has much better sources than the other list, if anything that list should be deleted because of it's lack of sources. Also if this list should be replaced with a category shouldn't the other, less referenced list? How can one support both statements? It's almost like saying Socrates was an atheist and he created new gods. It just doesn't make sense to say this list duplicates the other list so it should be deleted and it should be replaced with a category and be deleted. Perhaps, at least, the references in this article should be Merged with a Atheist Nobel etc. category. Naufana : talk 02:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being an atheist has nothing to do with being given a Nobel prize, thus overlistification, and is also trying to push some connection between the two, thus original research. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping this article, though I think that the other list of Nobel laureates by religion should be AfDed individually in the event that this list is deleted. Hut 8.5 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overcategorisation -- Agathoclea 13:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This list is much better referenced than the other lists of Nobel laureates by religious belief. Just take a look at the near-absence of supporting citations at List of Christian Nobel laureates, List of Hindu Nobel laureates, List of Humanist Nobel laureates, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, and List of Muslim Nobel laureates. Rather than being deleted, this article should remain as a stellar example of how the other articles of this type could be improved. Lists of this type are not a meaningless intersection of categories for the simple reason that many readers do find it meaningful to see how many Nobel Prize winners happen to have been members of a particular religious group. This list cannot be adequately replaced by a category, since lists provide something valuable that categories cannot: footnotes, supporting citations, quotes and details. This list does not duplicate List of Humanist Nobel laureates, since not all atheists are Humanists, and not all Humanists are atheists. Even if it were a duplicate, the quality of the atheist list justifies keeping it in preference to the Humanist list. The article is not original research, but reports faithfully what its sources say without coming to any new conclusions synthesized from those sources. The article does not push a point of view either--it neither disparages nor exalts these Nobel laureates' atheism. I have worked before with RS, the creator of this article, and it is true that he is a very enthusiastic proponent of atheism. However, the article should be judged on its own merits, and not according to suspicions about the neutrality of the author's motives. This is a very well-referenced article, and a fine example of how the other articles of its type could be improved. If this article is deleted however, I would support deletion of the other such lists, to avoid systemic bias. Nick Graves 17:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that List of Christian Nobel laureates is crap? Do you think it should be deleted as well? It appears to me that this is as if we were talking about deleting "List of Nobel Laureates from Wyoming", but ignoring all the other state lists. The lists of laureates by religion should be treated as a group, rather than choosig one unpopular religion and deleting it while leaving the rest. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of all those lists, it is the one that should not be deleted. It is without comparison the most well-researched and sourced. All people on it have repeatedly (and in many cases, militantly) professed their atheism, and furthermore they're all famous (more famous than your average Nobel Prize winner, that is). Makes you wonder how many laureates not as famous and/or not as prone to propagate for their religious convictions are accurately listed as Jews/Hindus/Shintoists.--Victor falk 22:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really matter, they should all go for the same reason - they serve no encyclopedic purpose. If this was a almanac of trivia then they would have a place. Further you last comment or two proves that this is a problematic addition Hardyplants 22:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kudos to those that have sourced this list. Too bad it's an example of over-listification. This, and all the other lists of Nobel Prize winners by religious alignment should be deleted (just as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (3rd nomination)) because it's based on a single trait that has no logical bearing on being a member of said institution. — Scientizzle 15:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Nick Graves, basically. I also want to address the three main arguments for deletion:
    1. The article implicitly pushes a POV. The mere existence of the article does nothing of the sort. Is the content itself POV? No? Then move on, please.
    2. The article is original research. It is not original research to state that a person is atheist when there exists a reliable source to support that assertion.
    3. Irrelevant intersection. This is the dominant deletion rationale and has been challenged by numerous editors above. However, I want to pose a question: even if this is an example of over-listification, should we delete a perfectly sourced lists solely on that basis (and, moreover, a basis which has been challenged). Lists that are examples of over-listification should usually be deleted because they are unsourced, original research, or just pointless trivia; none of those designations apply to this list. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm ... I think your statement basically proves my point. The article does not insist that the intersection is notable. Nor does it insist that the atheism of these people had any sort of influence on their work. It might be original research if it did, but the fact is that it doesn't. There is no synthesis required to note that a person who is "a Nobel laureate" and and "an atheist" is "an atheist Nobel laureate".
  • The OR argument is inaccurate for this article. A better case can be made for this being an "irrelevant intersection", but I'm hesitant to agree to deleting a well-sourced list for that reason alone, especially when similar, lower-quality lists have survived deletion discussions. The survival of the other lists alone does not justify the retention of this list, of course, (WP:WAX, after all) but it suggests that a bundled nomination with the intent of reaching a general consensus may be a better approach than targeting individual lists (because the "irrelevant intersection" argument, if applied to one, applies to all). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 02:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh ... you have a point. My "keep" recommendation was partly in response to the inaccurate accusations of original research and POV. I've changed to "weak keep" as the list, despite issues of relevance of intersection, seems perfectly sourced. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 15:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lists are not articles by their nature; there is nothing notable about individual beliefs or lack thereof; it seems POV to even mention it. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. WP:SYN --Kjoonlee 11:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nominator. WP:SYN. I can't understand how the only rationale for "keep" seems to be WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Kjoonlee 11:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What, exactly, is the original synthesis? That these individuals are atheist Nobel laureates is supported by reliable sources. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 15:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A list of atheists would be perfectly acceptable, and a list of Nobel laureates would be perfectly acceptable (except insofar as either of these would be better as categories). Both of these phenomena are easily documented in and of themselves. However, I know of no reliable sources that discuss atheism and Nobel winning together. To combine the two is a synthesis, to advance a position (that this intersection is somehow an important or positive aspect of intellectual life). Same for Christian Nobel laureates, Hindu Nobel laureates, and so forth (the case of Jewish Nobel laureates may be an exception, as I think there actually is a body of scholarship on that particular intersection). As I said above, if a significant body of work on this topic does actually exist, I will withdraw the nomination. Chubbles 16:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it is not. Noting that someone who is "an atheist" and "a Nobel laureate" is "an atheist Nobel laureate" is simple addition and does not constitute a synthesis. If the article claimed that their atheism and status as a Nobel laureate is related in some way, that would be an original synthesis. However, it does no such thing. The existence of the list itself implies no POV as the title is neutral/descriptive; if the content is neutral (it is), then the list is fine as far as POV issues go. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An irrelevant conjunction of 'atheist' and 'Nobel laureates'. --Malcolmxl5 08:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list is apparently part of a set of lists of Nobel prize winners by religion or even by alma mater, all listed in Category:Nobel laureates. I think that's a silly way of arranging things, but apparently people like these kinds of lists. I'd support a motion to delete the entire set, but it doesn't make sense to delete them piece-meal. As for the "humanist" list, I think that atheism is a clearer criterion than humanism, which is less easily defined. In sum, I say let's keep this article until we are ready to get rid of all such lists. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:40, 15 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_atheist_Nobel_laureates&oldid=1138003920"