Deletion of List of Roman Catholic cleric–scientists

Comment: Useful list with well-defined inclusion criterion. Nomination seems to be based solely on . Serious pruning of the intro was desirable (I have now pruned it), and the list might be broadened to non-Catholic clerics; but that's not a matter for AfD. -- Special:Contributions/202.124.72.178|202.124.72.178
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: The content of the article may violate  and may even be incorrect, but the ''topic itself'' is notable and relevant enough
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: as a perfectly notable topic.  Some of the list might be pruned, but AfD is not meant for pushing along the normal editing process.  I can't see how anybody could look at this article and reasonably conclude that it violates , , or  for lack of notability.  That R.C. clerics have been notable scientists is not new history, that is, this article is not |an original idea and |can be easily sourced if one searched online. Having been nominated at AfD is not a 'black eye' - there are plenty of GAs that have been nominated in the past for deletion; I even edited Amy Krouse Rosenthal|one article that went from speedy deletion to the front page's DYK section in three days -- although it is |unfriendly.  NPOV content can likewise be removed through the ordinary process.  Perhaps the only remaining issue is that this article ''could'' become fodder for those who have the POV that the R.C. Church ''used to be'' unfriendly to science, then became friendly, but is no longer pro-science.  For that issue, we must be concerned lest this article becomes a |POV fork of the History of science, but concern does not translate into a mandate for deletion: that's why we watch pages
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG||WP:LIST||WP:OR||WP:BEFORE||WP:BITE||WP:FORK)