Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of science and religion scholars

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of science and religion scholars[edit]

Does not appear to be a well-defined notable classification of scholar. Certainly some people have written about both or have written about the intersection of science and religion (for instance, Michael Behe), but does that make them science and religion scholars in any consistent sense? The inclusion criteria whitelist a few sources, and generally require original synthesis. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate. This article should be split into "List of science scholars" and "List of religion scholars". Jonathan321 (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was doubtful about this at first, but it is list of scholars in the science and religion community. i.e those who are seriously addressing the relationship between the two activities, and have been peer reviewed by in that community. The idea of splitting it into two lists completely misses the point of this list. I doubt that Michael Behe would qualify for this list. As the non said he is not part of the science and religion community. ,--Bduke (Discussion) 07:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, an unusual one--I share BDukes view--I expected a thorough mess, but the article actually has quite reasonable criteria--people who are notable or published a notable book, and who are listed in standard lists. The titles of their books make it evident that they are indeed notable scholars on this subject. And the subject is a well defined one. I don't think there's synthesis here--just a good conception of n article and a model for how to do others. DGG (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with the nominator. It appears to be a hodgepodge list that doesn't properly explain why these scholars deserve special citation. It is, admittedly, an interesting idea for an article -- but not in its current indiscriminate state. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it does need an inclusion principle stated somewhere, but right now it looks like it is a solid list full of notable people in a narrow field. --Buridan (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list contains several individuals who have had their own Wikipedia articles for a while; enough for them to have been deleted already if they were not notable. The current science-religion debate is all over the news, enough for the topic to be considered notable. Michael Behe is certainly a key player in that debate.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ecoleetage, too indiscriminate for my tastes. JBsupreme (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2008 (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.