Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American philosophers

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. This was a controversial nomination, and I had to weigh this one carefully. The high presence of WP:ILIKEIT-style comments made me wonder if discounting them could show consensus to delete. In the end, though, I found that even without them, I couldn't find any consensus to delete on this one. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American philosophers[edit]

Seems to be the exact same type of lists as List of Jewish American social and politicial scientists which has recently been deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American social and political scientists. Lists are essentially just more specific subdivisions of the deleted list. Has been unsourced or sourced with partisan and questionable sources for over a year. Is subject to much vandalism that is not reverted (for example, adding Sean Connery to the lists). Provides no real content or information or use. And seems to violate "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" of WP:NOT. Bulldog123 03:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - these are part of a set: Lists of American Jews, an expansion of Lists of Americans and Lists of Jews, which are expansions of Lists of people by nationality, which is an expansion of Lists of people. While the nominated lists appear to be cross-categorizations, what they really are in essence are subdivisions of a huge list which had to be subdivided into further lists (there are a lot of American Jews). Subdividing by occupation is superior to merely chopping it up alphabetically. Deleting any of these lists will simply put irrational holes in the system of people lists. Please browse the links provided here to get a feel for the whole system before deciding to delete part of the system. Thank you. The Transhumanist 05:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most ethnicity-American lists don't attempt to list everybody, but rather the ones known more for their Other Americanness (so to speak). But on the occasion we do get cross-categorizations or overloaded lists, they get deleted based on individual merit (like List of Norwegian Americans). In fact, there was a discussion on what to do with these ethnicity-American lists and the conclusion was to just judge each individually on how it's presented. So merely because we have a system, doesn't mean everything has to stay in that system. Dividing by occupation, though, has to be notable (say, African-American writers) and better be loaded with a really good source to prove why it is. That's definitely not happening in any of these lists. They're just a bunch of names, related, in some cases, very loosely. Bulldog123 23:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain which of the speedy keep reasons this meets. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for exact same reasons. I noticed that some of the categories have been deleted too. When the categories were deleted they didn't always provide a substitute, so the people lost their Jewish Category. The only way to find them now is in the lists. Peek at a few such as Paul Benacerraf, and he isn't in a Jewish category. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Benacerraf is French so I don't see how this is related to Jewish Americans. Add Category:French Jews then. Bulldog123 03:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume he becomes American when he moves to the United States, as he did in 1960, and receives US citizenship. Why do you find that hard to understand? My point is that he is not in any Jewish category, because the Jewish categories were deleted too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Please explain which of the speedy keep reasons this meets. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy nothing While two consecutive comments labelled "speedy keep" looks impressive, I don't know where the idea comes about that the label "List of Jewish American _____" is entitled to a speedy keep. The only reason I don't say "delete all" is that I think that a list of "Jewish American philosophers" actually is relevant, since their philosophical speculations may be in accordance with, or in spite of, an upbringing in the Jewish faith. On the other hand, what's the purpose for a list of Jewish American psychologists? Should someone treat with or avoid a psychologist because of his religious background? Do we assume that a Jewish linguist is going to know more Yiddish or Hebrew than a Methodist linguist? How is a Jewish economist different from a gentile economist...? (No, I don't know the punchline) Mandsford 18:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Secular Jewish philosophers, which this essentially is, was deleted based on non-notability and is a staple for overcategorization. Bulldog123 23:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate Delete — The same logic applies here as was the consensus for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American musicians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christians in entertainment and media. So deleting these is consistent with part 4, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. The entire Category:Lists of people by belief tree should be checked. Examples include List of Muslim scientists and List of Hindu soldiers. — RJH (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Firstly, the last two lists above seem to be referenced so they shouldn't be lumped in with the others. Secondly, if you spot vandalism, please revert it not bring the article to AfD. (I can't actually find Sean Connery in any of the lists.) Thirdly, we should consider each AfD on its merits, so deletion of another list is irrelevant. Otherwise, I agree with the keep arguments above.--Bedivere 22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain which of the speedy keep reasons this meets. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, first of all, straight lists are more appropriately addressed in categories, yet in this case these shouldn't even be categories as they involve non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. --MPerel 05:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this violation of Wikipedia:Listcruft. See also related Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Thank you, IZAK 09:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 09:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I dont see any thing bad about this lists, truely- you are going too far friends.--Gilisa 13:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain which of the speedy keep reasons this meets. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For clarity, Gilisa subsequently changed this from a speedy keep to a regular keep. Stifle (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - how is a list of people connected by a intersection of religion, nationality and profession encyclopaedic? - fchd 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge If these lists were deleted, the names would all have to be moved to the List of American Jews, which would then get very big. Isn't it sensible to split up a big list? If not by occupation, then how? Alphabetically? The last list is not by nationality so the comments by fchd are irrelevant.--Habashia 11:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)— Habashia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep as a reasonable subdivision and a notable intersection--the number of people there shows it. This would only be deletable if all ethnic lists were, which is very much not the policy, though some seem to want to change it so it is. Repeatedly saying "'nonotable intersection" doesnt make it so. Perhaps the previous deletions of similar lists should be revisited. Fortunately, we're not bound by precedent, and can correct our errors. DGG (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been deemed non-notable long ago: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_31#Category:Secular_Jewish_philosophers. Bulldog123 03:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Many anti-Semitists and quasi anti-Semitists do not like Jews and try to hide their significant role in culture. So, we see a policy to delete or redirect lists of Jewish artists and scientists. It is not a good way. Being human, we must have a satisfactory presentation of every set of facts. - Mibelz 13:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, failing which renominate as separate lists. Most of these are non-notable intersections. The people on the lists are probably notable, but the list concepts themselves are not. Wikipedia is not a directory, and beware overcategorization. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the interest of full disclosure I was solicited to come to this AFD by User:Bulldog123 on the grounds that I closed previous deletion discussions involving lists of (foo) (bar) (gazonk)s. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Keep these articles and put this issue to bed. These are clear and well-defined lists that are completely in character with the criteria defined by WP:LIST. The suggestion that deletionists should take a second crack at deletion on a one-by-one basis after this AfD fails is a clear cut case of trying to take two bites of the apple. Alansohn 23:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep philosophers who are from a certain minority are different than other philisophers and we need them as a separate issue in an encyclopedia.--יודל 13:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- And how does this list help us understand why they are different? Bulldog123 03:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That they are Jews.--יודל 12:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So a plain list of secular Jewish philosophers helps us understand why a secular Jewish philosopher is different from a secular Anglican philosopher? Bulldog123 23:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry i don't see the word secular--יודל 23:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the title: Jewish American. An American Jew is not defined only by his or her religion. If you were looking for exclusively religious Jews, it would then be in the form of Category:Philosophers of Judaism. Bulldog123 23:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Americans may be secular but they are Jewish and and their tradition plays a unique role in their Philosophy.--יודל 00:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Please explain which of the speedy keep reasons this meets. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first one: there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, The nominator of this discussion declares that Philosophers are the same as Scientists, and since there was a consensus to delete Jewish scientists we must therefore also delete Jewish philosophers. this argument is in my view a rationale for deletion for the sake of process, which is a speedy keep since this subject in of itself has great merit to exist and not be deleted.--יודל 16:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - No, the nominator specifically said it looks like a vilation of " "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" of WP:NOT". This is why we lack List of Asian American philosophers, List of Asian American linguists, List of African American linguists. What, there are none? Bulldog123 03:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main argument was that it should be like Jewish Scientists, and for that it is a speedy keep, for the other arguments it is a normal keep since a philosopher from Jewish decent is shaped and influenced by his ancestry and tradition unlike any other minority.--יודל 12:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment below. Comparisons to other AfDs are not useful. About your second point, I don't think its very clear; as written, it seems vaguely absurd to me. (Unless you meant 'like'.) Relata refero 15:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I haven't yet seen an argument that convinces me that this is a notable intersection, as required by policy. Relata refero 17:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point out what might well be obvious that policy enjoins us to keep notable intersections; clearly some intersections will be notable, and others not, so any claims that 'there are others' is not a sufficient argument, and should be disregarded by the closing admin. Relata refero 20:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jewish people are an ethnic diaspora like any other and we have plenty of other articles and categories for African-Americans, Asian-Americans etc. If necessary they could be merged to Lists of American Jews and List of Jews as these articles are not overly long. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better as categories. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and in particular The Transhumanist - This seems to me to be a group of notable and valuable lists worth keeping. Modernist 15:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikiepdia is is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor a directory. There is no need to catagoriseevryone on the planets into lists by their nationality/ethnicity/religeon/proffession/whatever. These lists do not belong in an encyclopaedia. [[Guest9999 17:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
keep Very notable intersection. Yidisher and others make compelling arguments. Miles Naismith 17:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)— Miles Naismith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The speedy keep !votes above might validly have been based on nominating them all together appearing like WP:POINT. That's not what I said myself, though--I said keep, meaning keep all. Lists are not categories, and prior afds otherwise are ripe for overthrow. I hope there is consensus for meaning groupings like these. DGG (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a frequent contributor and an admin, I'm sure you know what is and what isn't a WP:POINT contribution, so it doesn't behoove you to use it incorrectly in these circumstances to try to justify the speedy keeps. Since this clearly isn't a hoax or a fillibuster, you're claiming that this nomination can be seen as Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system by those who voted speedy keep. From the list of examples of gaming the system, I'd really love to see one that applies to nominating several related lists together. The truth is, all speedy keeps are coming from people who either take this issue too personally (noting the anti-semitic accusations) or from people who simply haven't been paying attention to recent discussions on what to do with List of Foo Americans. If they don't realize this doesn't apply to the criteria for speedy delete, User:Stifle gave them the opportunity to overturn their !votes. Only Gilisa appears to have overturned his. There is no need for you to "guess" at what they meant by it, or to try to cover for them. I'm sure if there was a valid speedy keep reason, they would list it themselves. Linguists, economists, and philosophers are all generally seen as social or political scientists, and it would be foolish to not nominate these together, especially since WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a favored argument for retention over deletion. On the other hand, biologists are not as closely related, and so they are not nominated together with these others.
That said, for everyone who did put "Keep becuase notable" --- if Jewish American philosophers are supposedly notable, why is the deletion discussion of the secular Jewish philosopher category an example of a non-notable intersection on WP:OCAT? These is no indication any of the Jewish American philosophers listed are religious and if they are then they belong in a different list/category. Bulldog123 23:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Notable categorization, which assists our users in obtaining the information they need. There's no reason to make it nearly impossible for our users to utilize this list. Editor proposing deletion is well known for his/her profusion of WP:POINT nominations without merit (in this case, an extreme view that wishes our users not to have any way, except in looking through the individual articles of every American philosopher, to have a list of philosophers of Jewish heritage). Badagnani 00:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another user who doesn't understand WP:POINT. Bulldog123 00:57, 24 October 2007 (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.