Deletion of List of Jewish Nobel laureates

Comment: This is an arbitrary intersection. Yes, there are plenty of people promoting Jewish culture who are interested in the topic of which people of Jewish heritage have achieved some success, and accordingly there are several references where enthusiasts have likewise listed Jewish Nobel Prize winners. However, every other significant grouping of people has similar enthusiasts who would like to publish any connection between their group and some form of success. Wikipedia should only have intersection lists where there is some independent study of the intersection as a topic (e.g. ''How'' does being Jewish affect winning this prize? If the loose criteria for being "Jewish" were applied to other groups of similar size, would the other group have some significantly different result with regard to this prize?). This list has no encyclopedic purpose other than |original research to promote a POV with regard to the success of a particular religion/ethnicity/elastic grouping
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Non trivial intersection; some recipients are notable for being Jewish, and for being Nobel Prize laureates.  Perfectly allowable under 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SALAT)

Comment: It serves no purpose (and only creates  issues) because the Nobel Prize committee explicitly states its prize is awarded without consideration to ethnicity, religion, or even nationality. |Ethnicity, by itself, is not notable and the |policy on lists states that a good way of judging whether something is CRUFT|listcruft is by seeing if an article can be written about its contents. List of Freemasons exists because of Freemasonry... but List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners doesn't have a Jews & The Nobel Prize article to substantiate it, and will never have such an article because there's nothing to say except "A good number of Nobel Prize winners had a Jewish parent." Furthermore having members of a distinct ethnic group win the prize ''often'' is also not a list-worthy characteristic. Nobody feels the need to make List of ethnic German Nobel Prize laureates, though if it were created on the same criteria as the Jewish list (having a recent ancestor of German ethnicity), there'd be just as many self-identifying candidates. Also I get the feeling that if  List of ethnic German Nobel Prize laureates did exist, it'd be |trolled into oblivion for being "racist." Furthermore, despite what's being said here, about 1/3rd of the list maintains various other ethnic ancestries in addition to Jewish, and many more have never outright stated they identify as being "Jewish." (e.g., It's never mentioned that Otto Wallach -- who is frequently listed as only ''Jewish'' -- is only approximately 1/4th Jewish by ethnic descent -- his Jewish grandfather having converted to Protestantism and the remainder of his ancestors being ethnic Germans
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BATTLEGROUND||WP:EIN||WP:LIST||WP:LISTCRUFT||WP:TROLL)

Comment: Notable intersection, as defined by the fact that secondary sources find it to be an intersection that they like to mention/discuss. Note: this has no bearing on other articles intersecting religions and other factors that Wikipedia has, had, or will have - it's specific to this intersection, per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I ended up seeing this list via the biography of Andre Geim, recent Nobel laureate in physics who describes himself as having a Jewish great-grandmother and a name that sounds Jewish. His name got stuck onto the list, which changed its rules in order to justify the addition of somebody who was briefly described in a 2006 computer journal as Jewish, with a few other sources picking up that info no doubt from the Googlable first one. List enthusiasts claim its methods need not be limited by  because it is a list not a category, although it gets used to tag articles like Geim's "See also: List of Jewish Nobel laureates' thus asserting Wikipedia:BLPCAT#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates|"without disclaimers or modifiers" that Geim is Jewish. And if a curious reader clicks to the List, again there are no modifiers, and certainly no explanation that the rule in force, https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates&diff=392202473&oldid=392190680 since it got changed after Geim's win, is only ""A Jew is anyone that reliable sources say is a Jew." The list is a magnet for POV-pushers who care less about the accuracy of information in Wikipedia than they do about stretching the length of the list by one name--even though putting fake names on the list serves to devalue the list's integrity. If the list fell under some Wikipedia rule for putting (or not) people on it, preferably including for living laureates a requirement for self-identification as Jewish, I would feel differently. But the list enthusiasts make up their own rules
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPCAT)

Comment: per , criteria #6, which states that: ''"Wikipedia articles are not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon."'' This article is an almost exact fit for "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y", where religious group X = Jews and organization Y = Nobel laureates
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: Per established precedent for such lists of notable individuals, as clarified in , , , AT, and , this list is specifically per applicable policies and guidelines and serves the project and its readers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SAL||WP:LSC||WP:LISTNAME||WP:SALAT||WP:LISTPEOPLE)

Comment: Excuse me, while I'm not particularly worried about being outed as having my account occasionally connected to that (multi-user) IP address, it's nevertheless strongly against Wikipedia policy to call additional attention to the connection.  And |the responsibility to assume good faith requires you to assume that Epeefleche's efforts were in accordance with allowable canvassing under the canvassing policy, and that any editors who feel improperly canvassed will come forward of their own accord as I did.  And for the record, that was the ONLY one of the Jewish list articles I was asked by another editor to comment on, and I've not voted on it because I didn't feel comfortable with the invitation. Your need to resort to ad hominem attacks speaks poorly for the strength of your argument.  I think in any case there's very little chance that any of these AfDs will be closed as other than "no consensus
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: Wikipedia should not be placing people into subjective and potentially contentious ethnic or religious categories.  Doing so is against the spirit of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPCAT)

Comment: WP:NOT|Wikipedia is NOT a directory - inclusion of any living person on the list (see ) would violate ,  and ultimately . It all depends on what criteria you use, the recent disruption by users at this article and a BLP in an attempt to include someone that is clearly not Jewish, is an example of why this dubious list is a disrupted net loss
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:LISTPEOPLE||WP:BLP||WP:COP||WP:EGRS)

Comment: So, can we get a headcount for how many  and  there are here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:JUSTA)

Comment: This list fully complies with ist and  to include the question of notability.  Any arguments to the contrary are disengenious.  Additionally, arguments that a category is sufficient ignore .  Finally, the most ludicrious delete argument in this discussion: ''It the list serves no purpose'' assumes the voter speaks for millions of WP readers and 1000s of WP editors.  That is arrogant and unproductive.  This list, as DGG says above, is inherently encyclopedic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:L||WP:SAL||WP:NOTDUP)

Comment: Can I point out that even if a decision to 'keep' is made, inclusion of any living person on the list (see ) would violate ,  and ultimately . Policy cannot be overridden for an article 'by consensus
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:LISTPEOPLE||WP:BLP||WP:COP||WP:EGRS)

Comment: Individual notices like that are clearly , though I now see that they are not pertaining to this discussion directly.  Do you have any evidence that he has engaged in this activity right now?  I will note that after being called out on the possible canvassing above, he's been leaving notices on the talk pages of people like me, who are opposed to his POV.  What a childish circus all of this is.  Bah
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS)

Comment: I also want to mention that this |list is surreptitiously being used like a category by means of linking it into various ''See Also'' sections. See: Special:WhatLinksHere/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates. Therefore, Wikipedia:OCAT#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_orientation applies here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)

Comment: reply to Jalapenos) Actually, the arguments for deletion include a lot more about policies than those for keep, which tend to cite only .  The claim that a topic is potentially notable does not give Wikipedians a license to create and maintain an article on that topic that violates many other Wikipedia policies. Furthermore, it is impossible to imagine serious research on Jewish Nobel laureates that does not choose some real criterion for demarcating subjects as Jewish
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: WRT the claim this article should be deleted as per the previous {{tl|afd}} -- the previous {{tl|afd}} claimed ''"The lists, with the exception of the atheist one, are either poorly sourced or completely unsourced..."''  Since this version is referenced the previous {{tl|afd}} is inapplicable.  Isaac Asimov, a writer I really admire, wrote extensively about prominent scientists, and often listed them by their nationality/ethnicity.  It seems to me that when it is wikipedia contributors who compile lists that do not rely on  those lists are both listcruft and lapse from .  But lists that are properly referenced, as this one is, and, apparently, the previously deleted version weren't, are entirely appropriate.  As per
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:SYNTH)