Deletion of List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (3rd nomination)

Comment: Besides being a non-notable intersection, Jmabel's comment has convinced me that this is largely |original research: attesting some sort of Jewishness for an individual on the list would be appropriate of the type of research that goes into any biography, but putting them all together like this is OR by synthesis. In addition, putting this information on individual biographies would allow us to include it only where it made some notable difference to their lives, and would allow us to distinguish people Jewish by faith, by ethnicity, or by being called Jewish by others when they made no claim of it or denied it themselves; listing them like this obscures these important differences
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: I agree with BullDog,  and sockpuppet stacking?  It's too much considering that the list isn't that useful
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: This is in part true. People are over-using the phrase "original research" often harping on its meaning towards the way participants act and not on how it applies to article-creation. In a very similar way, you made the comment " it is difficult for me to see why the effort to delete this article should be seen as any less "agenda-oriented" than the effort to preserve it." Here you're not following your own advice. Commenting on "agenda-oriented" participants instead of "agenda-oriented" article-creation. However, the justification for the creation of a list cannot be original research. For example, I can't say "I'm going to make List of African-American billionaries and then justify it by saying slavery is obviously the cause of the small amount of billionaires, making this notable" in the same way as RandomHumanoid suggested "Anti-semitism is clearly the cause for the delay in accepting a Jewish member, making this notable."  is completely over-used and misunderstood, but that discussion is not very pertinent here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)