Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American mobsters

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American mobsters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Redundant, already 2 categories, and a main article Lizard with two tails (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Lizard with two tails[reply]
Keep. Useful list. well sourced. Redundancy is a given on Wikipedia. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See WP:CLN for the reasons to have both categories and lists. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Encyclopedic list. Joe Chill (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good reason offered for deletion. The "categories are the only way to go" argument has about run out of steam, and the article about Jewish-American organized crime was due a spinout. It's a sourced article with a good start to it. Mandsford (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is well sourced, and the notability between the intersection of Jewish Americans and mobsters is evidenced in the references. Them From Space 06:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well referenced and encyclopedic list. Also per UnitedStatesian, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 21:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not redundant to the main article, but an encyclopedic adjunct to it. Thoroughly sourced. --Orlady (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2009 (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.