Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (3rd nomination)
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
— User:Bulldog123, 04:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NOR (Wikipedia:No original research)