Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of American Jews
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists of American Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable ethnic group, and that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: An article on the ethnicity would be encyclopedic and welcome, however, apparently the new consensus is that these list of people by nationality/ethnicity are not appropriate for WP. Leuko 18:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I see such consensus anywhere. In fact, the List of German American AfD actually had more Keep votes than Delete votes, if I counted correctly. The closing admin's argument for deletion was loose association, and I highly disagree with the application of that argument on some of the lists (not all) that have been individually nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, WP:AFD is not a vote (so counting is irrelevant), and the deletion decision was upheld at WP:DRV, so there must have been consensus. There were actually more arguments to delete other than WP:NOT#DIR, but since you bring that up, I don't see how any other list of persons of a certain nationality, ethnicity or religion are any more tightly associated, and less of a directory. Leuko 19:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And the deletion of List of British Chinese people was overturned, relisted for AfD, and kept. Like I said, the fact that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean all similar lists should be deleted. Furthermore, I did not say that AfDs are decided on vote count, I am saying I see no consensus established regarding these lists, and that I disagree with the application of the closing admin's argument of loose association on some of these lists. WP:NOT#DIR is not applicable here as you can see from the examples given in the policy that it pertains to articles or lists providing contact information and otherwise consumer-related information or how-to information. This is not such a list. And the whole point of listing these lists individually as opposed to en masse in the first place is because some of these lists should be kept and others deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that was closed as no-consensus, which is not the same as keep. And the closing admin cited precedent of other lists of the same type being kept. By that logic, all these lists, including List of British Chinese people should be deleted per the new consensus and precedent. And I am not sure why we had to list each individually, as it seems we are making the same comments on each individual AfD, so evidently, there really isn't a significant difference between them. Leuko 19:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My two cents: Consensus from other deletion discussions is a weak argument here either for or against. No one is obligated to look at past discussions in order to decide to support or oppose keeping this article. On the other hand, the closing admin for this discussion may use the reasoning of the closing admin in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. That closing admin did cite WP:NOT#DIR as grounds for deletion, but the admin was able to do so because that argument wasn't countered in that discussion. The last item in WP:NOT#DIR was the crucial element in the closing admin's reasoning, and that section specifically cited List of Jewish American musicians as an example of something to which the rule did not apply.
It seems to me the clear implication of that example was that something like this article falls under that rule. Yet that does not mean this list is a goner. IMHO, if editors who want to keep this list can provide good counter-arguments to both WP:NOT#DIR and the reasoning of the closing admin in the "List of German Americans" deletion discussion, then it would be extremely difficult for the closing admin of this discussion to close as a delete (assuming there is no clear consensus to delete). Those arguments should (1) tie in with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and (2) tie in with overall Wikipedia encyclopedic goals. If that isn't done, this list could go the same way as the now-deleted "List of German Americans". (See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus.)I'm so foolish for not looking at the article first. This is a list of lists. The only argument should be over whether this is useful as a list of lists or whether a category should be used instead. Note that WP:NOT#DIR, last item, specifically endorses one of the lists itemized on this list. As for me, I'm neutral. Noroton 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC) ((fixed link Noroton 20:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC))) ((fixed foolishness. Noroton 20:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)))[reply]
- My two cents: Consensus from other deletion discussions is a weak argument here either for or against. No one is obligated to look at past discussions in order to decide to support or oppose keeping this article. On the other hand, the closing admin for this discussion may use the reasoning of the closing admin in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. That closing admin did cite WP:NOT#DIR as grounds for deletion, but the admin was able to do so because that argument wasn't countered in that discussion. The last item in WP:NOT#DIR was the crucial element in the closing admin's reasoning, and that section specifically cited List of Jewish American musicians as an example of something to which the rule did not apply.
- Actually, that was closed as no-consensus, which is not the same as keep. And the closing admin cited precedent of other lists of the same type being kept. By that logic, all these lists, including List of British Chinese people should be deleted per the new consensus and precedent. And I am not sure why we had to list each individually, as it seems we are making the same comments on each individual AfD, so evidently, there really isn't a significant difference between them. Leuko 19:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And the deletion of List of British Chinese people was overturned, relisted for AfD, and kept. Like I said, the fact that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean all similar lists should be deleted. Furthermore, I did not say that AfDs are decided on vote count, I am saying I see no consensus established regarding these lists, and that I disagree with the application of the closing admin's argument of loose association on some of these lists. WP:NOT#DIR is not applicable here as you can see from the examples given in the policy that it pertains to articles or lists providing contact information and otherwise consumer-related information or how-to information. This is not such a list. And the whole point of listing these lists individually as opposed to en masse in the first place is because some of these lists should be kept and others deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, WP:AFD is not a vote (so counting is irrelevant), and the deletion decision was upheld at WP:DRV, so there must have been consensus. There were actually more arguments to delete other than WP:NOT#DIR, but since you bring that up, I don't see how any other list of persons of a certain nationality, ethnicity or religion are any more tightly associated, and less of a directory. Leuko 19:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I see such consensus anywhere. In fact, the List of German American AfD actually had more Keep votes than Delete votes, if I counted correctly. The closing admin's argument for deletion was loose association, and I highly disagree with the application of that argument on some of the lists (not all) that have been individually nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: An article on the ethnicity would be encyclopedic and welcome, however, apparently the new consensus is that these list of people by nationality/ethnicity are not appropriate for WP. Leuko 18:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep, The rationale for deletion given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans was WP:NOT#DIR. So these lists below should also be deleted if we want to be consistent:
- List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Seriously, I think Jerko might have a point on this one, although it's been lumped in with all the other ethnic lists. In this case, however, it's a "list of lists" where someone has made separate lists of Philosophers, Social and political scientists, Linguists, Psychologists, Economists, Historians, Physicists, Chemists, Biologists and physicians, Mathematicians, Computer scientists, Engineers (that's just the first 14) that happen to be Jewish. Thus, you can navigate over to "List of Jewish American linguists" if you care to do so, and that's a bit excessive. I state this based on the fact that I've actually LOOKED at the article in question. This one defies the use of the rubber stamped, cut and paste comment that comes about when someone nominates a zillion articles on the same day. While most of the others are keepers, this should be deleted. Mandsford 23:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their ethnic/religious origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. I agree with ExRat and Badagnani. In addition, this mass nomination is too POINTY. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP ALL Elmao 06:03, 13 September 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.