Nobel prize winning ideas are not always accepted by the community.  By definition, they are paradigm shifting, revolutionary.

Accordingly, revolutionary.

Accordingly,  many breakthroughs that are in our textbooks today were initially rejected, if not ridiculed, by the scientific community. Howard Temin proposed a reversal of the central dogma, wherein RNA could create DNA.  It was called "ludicrous" and his Nobel "came after a lonely battle to overcome derisive criticism from scientific leaders who refused to believe in his theory that some viruses carry their genetic information in the form of RNA, which is then copied into DNA in infected cell." Similarly, Werner Arber, the scientist who discovered restriction enzymes worked, "in a climate of almost total indifference, notably that of the committees and organizations tasked with allocating funds for research" ...
keywords = {Molecular biology.},  pages = {158 p.},  year = {1998}  }" data-bib-key="b6c56a" contenteditable="false"> data-bib-key="b6c56a">  href="#b6c56a">Jacob 1998.

Here 1998.

Here  we outline 8 Nobel prize papers that were initially rejected by anonymous pre-publication peer review and ask, "What Nobel ideas are we rejecting and/or delaying today?"