Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners

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 keep. Consensus is that this list constitutes a notable and verifiable intersection. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners

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

This article was recently recreated even though it was previously deleted. It was first submitted for deletion back in 2004, and the result was no consensus. The issue of having Nobel lists based on religious affiliation was raised several times in the past, and after a long discussion in 2007, it was decided to delete all such articles (Jewish laureates, Christian laureates, atheist laureates...). Even if we were to consider Jewishness as an ethnicity and not just a religion (which is the argument that is often invoked in such situations), the article in its current form does not provide any reference whatsoever to back up the claim that any of the individuals listed are Jewish. Why are they listed here? What is the criterion used? I'm always wary of attributing a religious affiliation to someone without reliable sources clearly stating that the individual in question identified as such. In its current form, the article is a flagrant violation of WP:RS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BomBom (talk • contribs) 03:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —BomBom (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —BomBom (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I did not know it was deleted, but we have this category. What seem to be the problem in having the article? For all Jews being Jew is a state of mind. I've checked all individuals and all of them are added to corresponding categories as for example Jewish American scientists, German-American Jews , Jewish poets , Russian Jews, etc in the main articles they appear. I hope you are not suggesting that all those categories should be removed. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must have external reliable sources stating that the individuals in question identified themselves as Jewish. The fact that an individual is placed in a Jewish-related category on Wikipedia is not considered proper referencing, as Wikipedia cannot cite itself. I would also like to point out that if this article is kept, it will lead to a slippery slope and we will witness the recreation of other religion-based Nobel lists. --BomBom (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, you do not like it - so many Jews are laureates of Nobel Prize. Of course all the articles have the external reliable sources stating that the individuals in question are Jewish, and it could be confirmed with not just one, but by many reliable sources outside Wikipedia. Jews is not only religion, it is an ethnicity and it was a nationality in a former Soviet Union, that's why your claim about other religions has nothing to do with the article. I did not include to the article, the ones, who converted to Judaism. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mbz1, it is quite offensive for you to suggest that the reason I want this article deleted is because I "do not like [the fact that] so many Jews are laureates of Nobel Prize". This is certainly not why I dislike the article. There is already an article about Ashkenazi intelligence, and I have no problem whatsoever with it as this is a notable topic that has been extensively studied by external researchers. What I dislike about the Nobel list is that it lumps together very different people using a very subjective criterion (Jewishness, which cannot be as objectively defined as, say, nationality or university affiliation) without providing any kind of reference to back up the claim. The Nobel Foundation maintains several Nobel-related lists on its website. None of them are based on religion or ethnicity, which means that the awarding organisation itself does not consider the correlation to be relevant. As for the fact that there are other similar lists, please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. It is unfortunate that Wikipedia has such lists as List of black Nobel Laureates or List of Asian Academy Award winners and nominees. Ideally, I would like to see them go too. They were also submitted for deletion in the past (which shows that I'm not the only one who's uncomfortable with such "ethnic" lists), but there was not enough consensus to delete them. However, that's the way Wikipedia works; one bad list should not be an excuse for other bad lists. Finally, if you find it interesting that 22% of Nobel laureates are Jewish, then you can certainly go on and create a properly referenced subsection about that (one where the notability of the correlation is established by external sources) in the Ashkenazi intelligence article. This is where it would be most appropriate. Regards. --BomBom (talk) 05:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you said it yourself: List of black Nobel Laureates or List of Asian Academy Award winners and nominees. Then why we cannot have list of Jews Nobel Prize Winners. It is an interesting information, and wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so why not? See here: Jewish Genius. -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia. BTW not all Jews are Ashkenazi you know.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the article is quite interesting, and inspiring, it amounts to original research since it doesn't cite any sources that say, as a group, Jewish Nobel Prize winners are a notable thing. If someone writes a book putting this forth as evidence of Jewish intellectual or moral superiority (or of their status as God's Chosen People or whatever) then write an article on that but don't just give us the data. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every Nobel prize winner is notable, and it is just an interesting fact that Jews constitute 22% from those notable people. Nobody is talking about superiority, but as I mentioned above as long as Wikipedia hosts all those articles in place, I really do not see, how one could claim that this article should be deleted.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is an interesting fact, more than just interesting. However until someone else points out this fact WP should not do so. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is all over the NET. Wikipedia seems to be the only site that is missing the info :) --Mbz1 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's 'cause WP follows published sources, not other websites. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really believe that published sources are more reliable than web sites? Few months ago one of my images was published in a book. I explained to the author in length that the image was of inferior mirage. When I got a published copy of the book, it stated that the image is Fata Morgana, and it is only one example. Anyway here's a very reliable source, which has a individual article for every person mentioned in the list. Jews are not interested to claim that somebody is a Jew, if they are not 100% sure they is. Please trust me on that.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources that discuss the disproportionate percentage of Jewish Nobel laureates, there are also sources that discuss why this is the case. See Murray, Charles. Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 pp. 281-283 (we even have an article on that book, also viewable at Amazon). Also Zukerman, Harriet. Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States pp. 78-82 (google books). There are many more. I dont really have an opinion on whether or not this specific list should exist, but an article could certainly exist on Jewish Nobel laureates. But Mbz1, please calm down a bit, I am sure the people voting to delete are not doing so because they dislike the fact that many Jews are laureates of Nobel Prize. Also, I think you could take care of some of the concerns by providing a rock-solid source for each of the entries saying that the person is or was Jewish. nableezy - 06:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I provided 2 sources: Here we go Page 198. and reliable source. I am not sure who one could say "disproportionate" percentage of Jewish Nobel laureates. Why it is "disproportionate", and who was the one to establish proportions?--Mbz1 (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proportionate relative to the percentage of the population. Dont worry, its a good thing here. nableezy - 06:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's a fascinating list. We also have List of Jewish actors which I was at the other day and discovered several wonderful actors and actresses that I didn't know of were Jewish. We have List of black ice hockey players. Jews are proud of the achievements of their fellows, just as Black folks are proud of the people in their heritage group, and Russians are proud of their poets and and their inventors. If someone wants to argue that Blacks are superior at ice hockey or Russians are superior poets, that's their business. It is our business to give them the information that is relevant, not to make value judgments over the worth of such an article. Mbz1 is absolutely right that these Nobel Prize winners are notable for being Nobel Prize winners and there is absolutely nothing wrong with such a list. Stellarkid (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentYou wanted a published reliable source? Here we go Page 198.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable. However, in a list of this nature, there should be a WP:RS for each individual that indicates she/he is Jewish. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the list should cite sources saying each of the people listed is Jewish. But it has already been demonstrated here that reliable sources are available for many of them, so that argument for deletion falls away. I also agree that the list's preamble should contain a referenced explanation of why this combination of attributes (Jewishness and winning the Nobel Prize) is significant, e.g. based on the sources mentioned by Nableezy above. No difficulty there, it seems. People are also arguing for deletion by virtue of precedent (the 2007 AFD), and a kind of inverse WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: that all sorts of bad stuff will be created if we don't delete this one. The latter is not convincing, because we can simply bring the bad stuff to AFD, and let it stand or fall on its own merits. And people did argue late in the 2007 AFD (which was a group nomination of several lists of Nobel Prize winners by religion/non-religion) that the list of Jewish winners was a special case. I agree. -- Avenue (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nota Bene: This is an article that was just created, and perhaps Mbz1 has not had much experience with the sourcing requirements of new articles. It would have been better to discuss any preceived issues on the article's talk page before initiating an AfD. I suggest this AfD be closed, and time given to discuss any problems with the article on its talk page. If, after discussion, the articles still seems problematic to BomBom that would be the time for an AfD. 173.52.134.191 (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and verifiable: [1], [2],[3], etc. — Rankiri (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. 1) POV, who decicdes that someone is Jewish? Do we have a kind of statement? Why should that be relevant? 2) POV, this list tries to privilige Jewish in comparison to others. Why is that? Are Jewish God's blessed people or what? 3) Do we need now a list of Spanish Nobel Prize holders, German, English,....??? 4) Could everything be included in Nobel Prize winners, and what a person beliefs in is not subject to a neutral encyclopedia.

Hence because of POV and redundancy delete. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC) PS: cite: "Nobel Prize winners are notable for winning the Nobel Prize, not for being of a particular ethnicity or religion" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yikrazuul (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This list is just as relevant as List of Italian writers, List of American philosophers or thousands of similar lists on Wikipedia. If your concern is that we don't have List of German Nobel Prize Winners, feel free to create it using this source: [4]. I also suggest you visit WP:CFORK#What content/POV forking is not, as I see no reason to believe that this is a consensus-dodging POV fork and not a legitimate spin-off of the main article that discusses one of its subtopics in greater detail. By the way, what does "God's blessed people" have to do with anything? I'm afraid the only POV I see here is yours. — Rankiri (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have focused it only to the religion: Yes, we donna have a "List of Christian Nobel prize winners", "List of Hindu ..." etc. because it never should be important here to be "of a particular ethnicity or religion". I am sad to see that you are stressing the religion and ethnicity so much, which is your sad-but-true-POV. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list has nothing to do with the religion. The list includes few Jews, who converted to Christianity, and it does not include Christians, who converted to Judaism. Yikrazuul, I've also got a strong impression of at least bad-taste POV from your comment. Both times you've used "delete" you made it bold to look as a double vote. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - There is absolutely no evidence of POV here. Being of Jewish ancestry or conversion to Judism is not a vague criteria. Individuals either are or they are not and sources will confirm that. Equally so, Nobel Prize winners are known and verifiable. This list's inclusion criteria are clear and concise. One might quibble with an individual entry, but this list in toto meets WP:List and WP:CLN guidelines.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we do have articles on nobel prize winners by nationality, gender. i agree it can be a slippery slope: I dont like the article on "black" laureates, as that is a highly subjective description. however, people self identifying as jewish is very clear cut, even people who renounce their religion or even their culture, but acknowledge they came from it. We can support articles like that here, esp since jewishness is a highly notable identity that often transcends other categories, due to the history of the jews. we could have notable hindu winners (which is a highly culturally identified religion), but that would be mostly people from India, so somewhat redundant. I think a problem here stems with the original research in the lead, where numerous facts are pulled together to give an impression of POV. I dont think we can say much in the lead beyond "this is a list of people who have been awarded the NP who are Jewish", unless other reliable sources have written about the intersection of Jewishness and Nobel prizes. maybe if the lead is simplified, it will read better. MBz, if there are nobel laureates who converted to judaism, they would be included here. we would use the list as inclusively as possible.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestion, Mercurywoodrose. I've used the most reliable and the most conservative source I have found to make the list. That's why I did not include in the list few laureates. For example Elfriede Jelinek, who won Nobel Prize in literature in 2004 is one of them. Wikipedia article states about her: "Her father, a chemist of Jewish-Czech origin ("Jelinek" means "little deer" in Czech) managed to avoid persecution during the Second World War by working in strategically important industrial production. However, several dozen family members became victims of the Holocaust." Does it make her to be Jewish? I do not know. The idea behind the making of the list was not to make it is big as possible, but rather make it to represent the reality as much as possible. If the article would be kept, we could discuss later on, if laureates like Elfriede Jelinek should be included. One more example is Christian B. Anfinsen. He won Nobel Prize in 1972. He converted to Judaism by undergoing an Orthodox conversion in 1979, so 7 years later after he received the prize. I of course did not include him, because I felt, if I do I could find myself at a slippery slope. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz, your sourcing is actually terribly off. I had to deal with this list many times, and the state its in now is no better. You added two individuals without any original source information: Pyotr Kapitsa and Igor Tamm. If you do a little bit of research, you'll see there's actually no solid source saying either is Jewish. You'll only find some ethno-centric or anti-semitic sites listing them on and off --- without any source information on their pages. Also, the front of the page state "162 people who won Nobel Prizes were of Jewish ethnicity" -- which is yet again a misleading statement, as you fail to mention that almost 1/3 of those individual listed are Jewish by means of one Jewish parent or, in a few cases, less. How does that make this article NPOV? Bulldog123 20:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pyotr Kapitsa is listed in Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 10 (Keter, Jerusalem, 1972, p. 747), he was also a member of Jewish Antifascist Committee. I added another reference for the entry.

Tamm is listed in "The Encyclopedia of Russian Jewry, Biographies A-I", edited by Herman Branover, Jason Aronson, Northvale, NJ, 1998, pp. 351-352. I added another reference for the entry.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it has been shown time and time again that the Encyclopedia Judaica is a rather unreliable, and occasionally questionably motivated, source. Pyotr Kapitsa explicits states he is not Jewish: [5]. Straight from the horse's mouth. Similarly, if you consider Jewish encyclopedias to be good sources, you should then have removed Tamm for not being listed in the Russian Jewish Encyclopedia: [6] - which is perhaps the most extensive. There are no official recorded biographies of Tamm stating he is a "Jew." Yet, there are stating he is "half German" [7] and more than plenty stating he is "Russian." If you think it's strange to put Jelinek on this list for having a Jewish ancestor, you'd be hard bent not to find it odd to put Tamm.
Which once again shows that all this list is doing is regurgitating ambiguities and acting as great fuel for anti-semitic websites likes stormfront.org and low-brow Jewish "ethnic pride" webpages like the Jewish Virtual Library. Wikipedia doesn't need to substantiate the fact that Jewish people made great contributions to the world by having this list. It should be obvious. As obvious as a List of Caucasian Nobel Prize Winners. Arguments over content like this just screams: "Grow up, already." Bulldog123 02:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep verifiable, notable, and per Mbz1. Broccoli (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep: the particular stench alone of User:Yikrazuul's "Are Jewish God's blessed people or what?" should be a sufficient reason. --RCS (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - criteria for inclusion in the list is clear; that it's right now inadequately sourced (if that's even the case) is not grounds for deletion. That said, I want to note that a reasonable man could support deletion without being an antisemite, and it's wrong to impugn anyone by suggesting otherwise. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree Argue the merits, not the motivation--Mike Cline (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment- True but the comment "Are Jewish God's blessed people or what?" has zero place in an AfD, and frankly has a very bad smell. Stellarkid (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic itself is notable and has been covered in reliable sources since ... 1942 [8]. Also, as far as I can tell reliable sources have been added for most (all?) laureates.radek (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find!

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Radeksz. Racepacket (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To speak to the issue of lists by religion which some have objected to, we also have these For the record we have lists of Muslims, List of Muslim scholars, List of Muslim mathematicians, List of Muslim businesspeople, List of Muslim historians, List of converts to Islam, list of Muslim scientists, List of Muslim astronomers, List of Muslim soldiers, List of Muslim painters, List of Muslim astronauts, List of Muslim geographers and more. Obviously some people find this type of list interesting and informative. I haven't looked for any Christian, Hindu or atheist lists. Also to Mbz1 with respect to converts, Sammy Davis Jr. (a convert) is counted among List of Jewish actors. Stellarkid (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good finds, Stellar! I wonder what the reason for deletion would be offered now :) About converts, I personally would not have included them to the article because to me the list is more about ethnicity that about religion. If we are to include converts to Judaism, does it mean we should exclude converts to Christianity? Of course, in no way I own the article, so it is for community to decide who should be included. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question, Mb. I would say it would depend if the converted-to-Christianity Jews explicitly renounce their Judaism. I guess a group like Jews for Jesus and the Messianic Jews are Christian-Jews or Jewish-Christians. Most converted Jews still consider themselves Jews to one extent or the other. But if there were evidence that a converted Jew did not wish to be identified as a Jew, then it would make sense to leave him off the list. Indeed there are some well-known Jews that wish they were not; and there are even some prominent "Jews" that want to be identified as a Jew merely for political purposes. So you are right, It is complicated. Stellarkid (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so complicated, afaik. According to the Halakha, if you are born as Jew you can't be anything else other than Jew. I mean, you can convert to any other religion, but it would be meaningless to the Halakha beside being treated as Meshoomad (this is sort of apostasy). Broccoli (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not complicated at all, and this is why it's so important that each person's religion be sourced (and why the Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia won't do). If WP:RS report that a Nobel laureate is Jewish, they are Jewish for Wikipedia purposes. If there are no sources that identify the laureate as a Jew, they don't belong on the list. Nothing matters but the sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If we are to have lists (which gets debated regularly) then this list should stay. It has clearly defined AND LIMITED members that don't keep fluctuating (it can be added to but it would be a rare circumstance to remove someone), so it is a list that can be complete. Sourcing must be impeccable, but surely all nobel laureates should be notable enough for their own article anyway, so the sourcing should be also in that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - the article is POV. Vexorg (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh??? Anyway, even if it was (which it isn't), POV is not a valid reason for deletion, please read the Wikipedia deletion policy. Appears to be simply a IDON'TLIKEIT vote.radek (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Question - Vexorg - Since WP:NPOV is a core WP policy, I am open to changing my position of Strong Keep above if indeed as you assert that this article is POV. The operative concept in the WP:NPOV policy is this: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. In this article, the majority perspective is that there are some number of Nobel Laureates that are of Jewish descent. The list presents that majority perspective well, although individual list entries may be subject to verifiability. What then is the minority view that is not presented fairly? Your assertion that the article is POV must mean that a minority view is not presented fairly. If that is the case, what is that minority view and how might it be presented so that the article was indeed NPOV? Please address these questions so as to better assess your claim of POV. Thanks.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not think the vote by Vexorg should be discussed seriously because at least on two occasion the user added unsourced Jewish ethnicity claim to the persons, who are not Jews: [9] and [10]. I'd like to assume good faith in the user vote, but...--Mbz1 (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's a surprise. Looks like I'm on 'the list' - It's worth noting that editors of good faith don't have to resort to attacking the history of other editors in order to give weight to their rationale here. I'm entitled to vote/comment here just as you are. If your arguments are strong enough you should need to personally dig at other editors. FWIW David Sainsbury and David Sumberg are Jewish and something they are entitled to be proud of. Anyway it's clear why you and Mike Cline are very protective over this article .. User_talk:Mbz1#Strengthening_the_Lead-in_for_List_of_Jewish_Nobel_Prize_Winners and I would imagine this will be taken into account. Vexorg (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and Mbz1, calling people nazis who do not agree with your agenda is not very nice either is it? Vexorg (talk)

The exact quote from my talk page: "nazis did not ask for a reliable source to prove somebody is Jew, when they murdered 6 millions innocent women, children and elderly" So, whom exactly did I call "nazis"? I mean, if I did, it is a bookable offense, go report me to AN/I or take your acusation back.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry I didn't read your quote properly. I retract the statement. Vexorg (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe you should retract your accusation towards Mike Cline. He helped me with the article because I asked him to. There's nothing bad in his help,is it? On the other hand he warned me to "avoid challenging the behavior and motivations of those opposing your position." So, if you need to blame somebody, blame me alone please, Mike has nothing to do with it.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He gave you good advice Vexorg (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then admit you were unfair to him.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is obviously an ethnicity-based list, not a religious one, and unlike most of these Jewish lists (e.g. List of Jewish American entertainers), this one is actually notable, maintainable, readable, and complete; most of the other lists will never be so. The list is also now copiously referenced, thanks to User:Avenue. It, like other rare examples with similar qualities (e.g. List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices), actually has a chance of becoming a Featured List. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into List of Nobel laureates by ethnicity. I think that will solve the problem of having those IMO racists lists as Black Nobel laureates, Jewish Nobel laureates and the like. What makes this particular article relevant makes also the one for all the other ethnicities notable too. I think that that achieves neutrality. What makes Jewish ethnicity more notable than... I don't know K'iche' Maya ethnicity? Even if there is only one individual for that section. Such and article will be similar to List of Nobel laureates by country or by specialty. franklin 02:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have used the word "racist" so easy. Do you believe that everybody, who voted to keep the "racist" list is a racist or in the best case scenario are too stupid to see that the list is "racist"?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A writer once said. "Things are not how they are called but the way we call them along the way" (terrible translation probably). They don't call it racist because they call racist when something bad is said about a race of people. It happens that I call racist also to any division of persons into races or for what is worth, ethnic groups even more if it is done to show some sort of pride. Anyways, the important thing is about creating the article List of Nobel laureates by ethnic groups. I would call also racist such an article too, but in this case all the possible races (present among the Nobels) will be represented. franklin 03:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, List of American presidents is a racist POV fork of List of all presidents, and the only way to make it neutral is to create List of presidents by ethnic groups. — Rankiri (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there are people in the world that do qualify in the epithet that Mbz1 were mentioning. First of all, List of all presidents is not gathering classes similar to List of American presidents, in the best case List of presidents by country. List of presidents by ethnic groups would certainly be better than having others like List of black presidents or List of Jewish presidents. franklin 12:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing racist about the list. The list is a part of Jewish history and Jewish heritage. It also provides encyclopedic information for people, who are interested in this particular topic. I've never said, and never will say that Jewish ethnicity is more notable than any other is, and of course, if somebody would create a similar list for any other ethnicity I am not going to nominate it to be deleted or to vote for it to be deleted.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's way the creation of List of Nobel laureates by ethnicity suits precisely that purpose and I would say it siuts better that purpose. It serves well to show Jewish history and heritage (articles on the topic can link to the specific section) and at the same time doesn't leave out other ethnicities. It shows information in a more encyclopedic way since it is more useful to establish comparisons, statistics, etc. The example I gave shows why having this independent article will certainly be a source of exclusivity. It is very unlikely that an article like "List of K'iche' Maya Nobel laureates" will be created because probably there is only one Nobel laureate in such category. franklin 15:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you're free to create a list of Nobel laureates by ethnicity, I'm not sure if it is really workable. Classifying people by ethnicity is not straightforward and depends on the context. Here you'd be trying to do it for people from all over the globe and across more than a century. The list of Jewish laureates has the advantage of focusing on a very restricted part of this problem, and even here there are tricky issues around the definition. -- Avenue (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—the primary argument for this article's deletion has been supposedly inherently referencing problems. This has already been proven false by the editor of the article. Therefore, there is no real delete rationale left. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only the issue of the lack of references has been addressed, which by the way, wasn't the primary argument. franklin 00:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please indicate which of the following criteria are any other "arguments" based on: Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion? Sourcing was the only possible issue here and it has been addressed.radek (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think it was indeed the main argument. -- Avenue (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but there is an inherent mistake in your question. I do not have to give one of those. The very first line states "but are not limited to". There are a couple of reasons why this list is not desirable and some have been mentioned by others but I would like to focus, for the moment, with the proposition I made, which I think suits well to those who want or need this article and also polishes some of the reasons why it is not a good idea. I am talking, of course about the only idea I have given, creating List of Nobel prize winners by ethnicity or List of Nobel laureates by ethnicity (which ever preferred). All the reasons for having this article are reasons for having that article instead. On the other hand, we have to face that this article's only addition is two numbers: 162 and 20%. It happens that it is a list of elements of a set (Nobel laureates) gathered according to a feature that doesn't have anything to do with it (being Jewish). Notice that that is not the case of any of the other list involving Nobel laureates. The alternative I mentioned at least is more politically correct. I think all the people wanting this article would find this alternative equally satisfactory or maybe better. That, if the real intention is to provide real encyclopedic information. I think that should have been the article created in the first place, if any in this direction. franklin 02:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're changing the subject back to your proposal, I've responded to that now under your !vote above. Here I will just say that no, I do not find your proposal equally satisfactory. But you're welcome to go ahead with your list as well. -- Avenue (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasonable intersection, as for other ethnic/religious/cultural etc. groups. That a few individual items in a list can be questioned does not mean the list is invalid. (the same argument goes for the restoration of lists mentioned as examples previously deleted). I am really unable to figure out why the arguments against having such lists are even considered, once sourcing has been dealt with the general discussion referred to goes back to 2007, and I hope consensus has been changed, and that we are no longer afraid of this sort of subject, and more receptive to lists in general. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep This intersection is notable given that there are many sources talking specifically about this intersection (and the oddly large size of the set). We have a lot of good sourcing so that's not an issue. There's a tiny issue of a similar article being deleted earlier but that was 3 years ago and had very different inclusion criteria, so there's no issue there. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I question the process that led to the earlier deletion of the article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination)). It is clear from that discussion that the claimed consensus was absent. Moreover, ethnicity/religion is clearly relevant to some winners of the prize for literature, e.g. Wiesel, Bellow and Singer, and peace (Rabin and Perez). List of Nobel laureates by ethnicity is a helpful suggestion, and would be an interesting article, I think. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - 90% of the keep arguments just say "Jewish is an ethnicity too!" which the nominator has already acknowledged. The reason for deletion is the same reason for deletion that was given in the other 10 AfDs. This list keeps on getting recreated. There's really no discussion here. You can't recreate previously deleted lists. Bulldog123 07:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, 90% of the keep arguments note that the list originally had less than perfect sources but that this has been much remedied since then. I myself showed above that the topic itself is notable in reliable sources going back to 1940. 95% of the delete votes DO seem to be based on nothing but IDON'TLIKEIT and completely ignore actual Wikipedia deletion policy.radek (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean ignoring wikipedia policy like recreating deleted lists? Bulldog123 01:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not actual Wikipedia policy. Please actually READ the policy before appealing to it: "Recreating a previously deleted page is not forbidden". And under valid reasons for recreation see "Improvement of previous writing" and "Poorly created articles" which are both very relevant here.radek (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It never was recreated, as a matter of fact I even never known it was here before. I've done everithing from the scratch. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of recreate is "make or cause to be or to become what has once already become." Therefore, whether you knew the list existed already or not, you recreated it after there had been discussions to delete this page and pages like it. "Jewish Nobel Prize winners" is not a topic. One criteria for making lists in WP:LIST gives a test. Can you make the article Jewish Nobel Prize winners without the "list" in front of it. You can't, because the topic is not separate in academia. Sites online use it for either ethnic pride of anti-semitic reasonings, and authors like Charles Murray use it to prove a point in his book (which lists all accomplishments by ethnicity and nation as well). But alone, it is not a topic that can have an article written about it. Bulldog123 02:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is all irrelevant as you are discussing an imaginary rule that doesn't actually exist. It is fine to recreate deleted pages as long as this is not done in a disruptive manner.radek (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2010 (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.