Category:Jewish inventors – Endorsed. There is considerable feeling that there are issues from the CFD that are unresolved, but no consensus to overturn it at this time. Since it was closed no consensus, it can be renominated at any point, particularly if an editor feels he can make a stronger rationale for deletion than that originally given. – Chick Bowen 05:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This category has been problematic for years, starting in 2007 when it was speedied for being empty (because a List of Jewish inventors took its place). The list has since been deleted as "non-encyclopedic" by almost unanimous consensus. This would suggest that an identical category would be even easier to delete because of the numerous policies advising against such a creation (WP:OCAT, WP:CATGRS, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, etc..). However, a lack of interest and a lot of a WP:POINT participation made this CfD way less thorough than the equivalent AfD.
I'm putting this up for deletion review because I believe the closing admin set up an unattainable threshold for "deletion." In terms of quantity, we have 6 !delete votes and 5 !keep votes (a tiny majority), however the !delete votes all refer to some sort of policy or guideline used to determine whether a category is encyclopedic-enough for Wikipedia. Since CfD is WP:NOTAVOTE, this should have been taken more seriously. Not a single one of the !keep votes presented policy-driven arguments, and - to be frank - their comments appeared rather disingenuous and sometimes irrelevant to the discussion all together.
Other than that, there was no reason given for why this is A) an encyclopedic categorical intersection B) Not WP:OCAT C) Not WP:NOT#DIR of random X and Y pairings. In addition, Occuli actually never seems to give a reason for !keeping other than to say "it was nominated before and it wasn't deleted yet." Here he says "Keep per my previous keep." Unfortunately, his previous !keep rationale was only "If in doubt, don't delete" sounds OK to me." (in reference to the category being deleted and then brought back by an SPA account). Again, no content for why it is an encyclopedic category.
When asked where these multiple reliable and verifiable sources, no response was given. In fact, charting this user's CfD/AfD history, it appears the above comment is one he regularly copies and pastes to other Jewish-related CfD/AfD discussions, paying no attention to specific rationales and never feeling the need to clarify.
Though it needn't be mentioned, this totally misses the point. There was never talk of deleting this category only because of its religious status. In fact, the nomination rationale directly says that the category is un-encyclopedic precisely because it is an irrelevant intersection of an ethnic group and an occupation.
Initially, brewcrewer gave no reason for why "that assumption is dubious." When questioned further, he "WP:REFBOMBed" with a google books search for the phrase "Jewish inventors", citing whatever came up as "evidence of a notable intersection." When explained how this was not the case, he no longer responded to comments.
As explained above, Peterkingiron's reasons weren't relevant or pertinent, and it would appear Epeefleche did not read the rationale either. Note, Epeefleche is notorious for !voting keep on anything with the word "Jewish" in it... very sparingly giving a reason other than "per someone-else".
On the other hand, we have two direct sentences in WP:OCAT that call this category into question. One is: If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created... the other being Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career.. No evidence exists to suggest this cat adheres to/passes either of those qualifications. In fact, there is no - and has not been since 2007 - criteria for inclusion in this category. Is it only for ethnic Jews? What about religious Jews? What about converts? What qualifies as an inventor? Is a discoverer an inventor? Is a mathematician an inventor? What makes that invention or discovery related to Judaism or Jewishness? User:brewcrewer said it was "dubious" to assume an individual's proclivity for invention is separate from his ethnicity. If so, where is the proof that all these people in this category have been influenced by their Judaism to ... invent? There is none.
All in all, it's pretty obvious that there was no shared consensus among these keeps voters for why the category should be keep. The !keep votes appear like disparate WP:IDONTLIKEIT chime-ins, fueled by the dislike of the recent outpouring of Jewish-themed CfD/AfD nominations. (Occuli even made a comment to that extent here).
tl;dr - With a [slight] delete majority and incomparably stronger !delete arguments, this should have been closed Delete. One cannot expect to have utter unanimity when semi-controversial religious/ethno categories are nominated... it simply will not happen. Also, I think letting this category close as "no consensus" is a bad precedent to set: keep-bomb a CfD with confused, contradictory reasonings and you can achieve a "no consensus" close by default. It's a way to game the system by having something you like kept without explaining its encyclopedic value.
Last Note - Nothing against User:Mike Selinker who closed the debate. I contacted him here and asked him to reconsider, but he suggested DRV. I think Mike just isn't aware of the long history of CfD/AfD debates concerning this topic and that closing yet another one of these as no consensus (when the delete consensus is pretty apparent) just puts us back to square one unnecessarily. Bulldog123 10:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete for the reasons above. Bulldog123 10:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. A perfectly reasonable closure on the basis of that debate.—S MarshallT/C 17:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please expound upon your rationale for endorsing. 10 words is not proving anything. I have outlined in great detail my point. You have not made the same attempt to prove anything I said incorrect. Bulldog123 22:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With pleasure.
Taking first the general rules we have, the most relevant criterion seems to be WP:OC#CATGRS. Interestingly, it gives "Jewish mathematicians" as an example of a category that should be deleted. I question whether this a particularly good example because OC#CATGRS is about ethnicities, religions or sexual orientations and "Jewish" isn't exactly any of the above. One can be a Jewish atheist so it isn't a religion, and it certainly isn't a sexual orientation or an ethnicity. It's arguably an ethnolinguistic group, but personally I think Jewishness might best be described as either a cultural identity or (as our own article on Jews rightly says) a nation.
Clearly the intent of WP:OC#CATGRS is to rule out the existence of any category called "Jewish (profession)" even if it ought not strictly to apply to Jews, who after all aren't exactly an ethnicity or religion. But equally clearly, as many deletion reviews of Jewish categories have shown in the past, this guideline is disputed. With guidelines, editors are free to use their discretion.
On this point, your nomination is entirely inaccurate where it says "we have numerous policies" against such categories. We don't. We have several guidelines, all of which say almost exactly the same thing. And none of them provide any reasoning that I find intelligible why we should have such a guideline. In fact, the whole "numerous policies" argument boils down to proof by repeated assertion, and in coming to my opinion I dismissed it entirely.
Over and above this, there is a red flag about this nomination. It's a pattern we often see at DRV. It goes like this: A disputed XfD is closed as no consensus. One participant has a strong belief that the strength of the arguments is on his side. Said participant replies to almost every single post on the subject with forcefully-expressed sentences in the emphatic declarative. This debate participant apparently believes the matter is black and white, that he is Right and that his interlocutors are Wrong. In fact, said participant is showing that he knows how to win an argument.
Taking into account the nature of the guideline and the red flag I see in the nomination, I'm of the view that there are no grounds to overturn this decision at DRV.—S MarshallT/C 23:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I question whether this a particularly good example because OC#CATGRS is about ethnicities, religions or sexual orientations and "Jewish" isn't exactly any of the above.
It's fine to question it, but if you do... you admit your "overturn" !vote here is opposite to what policy/guideline recommends. You said that "Jewish mathematicians" is explicitly listed as an example of a category we shouldn't have. I mean... let's be honest... "Jewish inventors" is a no-brainer. I don't necessarily agree with all policy/guideline either but when I'm in a CfD/AfD/DELREV... I adhere to it. Doesn't it seem like you should do the same?
Not that it's relevant, but I've never heard "Jewish" be described in this way. It seems like of all things, a single language is one thing all Jews never shared in common. Bulldog123 13:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
even if it ought not strictly to apply to Jews, who after all aren't exactly an ethnicity or religion.
It's really not up to any of us to determine what Jews are. External sources describe it as both an ethnicity and a religion, so we have to treat it as both unless we had Category:ethnic Jewish inventorBulldog123 13:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taking into account... and the red flag I see in the nomination..."
Maybe I'm not understanding, because I don't know exactly what you mean when you say "red flag," but I'm going to have to assume the "red flag" you're talking about is me being forceful and bringing this to DRV with a very thorough explanation of why the !keep votes were mostly disingenous drive-by attempts (that ultimately succeeded in their intentions). To that, I'd have to say: I don't think it's appropriate to determine your !vote here because you don't like me or my approach. Can't we just stick to content, please? If I misinterpreted what you meant by "red flag," please clarify. Bulldog123 13:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most importantly, I'm not seeing a real reason why you believe this was a fair close. Just a lot of talk about your opinions on what Jewishness is, personal disillusionment with policy, over-emphasis on semantics, and wiki-politics. Would you at least admit that something needs to be done about this category already. If not deletion, then a complete change-around. Albert Einstein is listed for god's sake. Bulldog123 13:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There are a whole platoon of responses to that, and I'll try to be as brief as possible for the sake of the closer's sanity. In no particular order: (1) It's not necessary for me to say why I think it was a fair close; at a deletion review the default is "endorse". It's for you to say why it was unfair, and I don't agree that this has been done. (2) The difference between "policy" and "guideline" is definitely not semantics at a deletion review. If it's a guideline (as it is in this case), then editors are free to disregard it at their own discretion, and their !votes should still receive weight if otherwise valid. If it had been a policy then the closer should have enforced it, but it is not. (3) I don't know what you mean by "wikipolitics". (4) The "red flag" is the frequency and intensity of responses by one participant. It indicates a danger that one side of a dispute might "win" by simply exhausting the others--an outcome of which I do not approve. That is not to say that I don't like you. I don't even know you, and I have no opinion on that. Nor is it to say that I disapprove of your approach. It is to say exactly what I've said, and no more. (5) Whether "Jewish" is a nation or an ethnicity or a religion or whatever is a central part of this dispute, if you believe that the existence of the guideline is relevant to the weight each !vote should receive. It's certainly not a red herring. The "overturn to delete" side believes this guideline should be enforced over the obvious lack of consensus between good faith editors. In order to assess that, it's necessary for DRV to interrogate whether the guideline applies. If "Jewish" is a religion or an ethnicity, then it does. If "Jewish" is a nation, then really, it doesn't, because inventors by nationality would be an acceptable category. See?
Basically, my position is that it's not for me to convince you. It's for you to convince DRV.—S MarshallT/C 13:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. I'm always surprised when a no consensus close winds up at drv. I guess I shouldn't be, since Cat:Jewish Foo almost always ends up here, unless it's a straight up keep. It would probably be good to deal with all of the Jewish cats as one, and get a wider consensus to end the debate once and for all, but since WP doesn't seem to want to go down that road, we wind up dealing with the categories on a case-by-case basis. In this case, Bulldog has explained in good detail above why the keep arguments should have been given much less weight, both for the argument themselves, and for the "drive-by" method of participation at cfd. Xfd is a discussion, not a vote. --Kbdank71 17:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This DRV seems to consist entirely of taking an evenly balanced discussion, treating all of the delete votes as being unassailably probative, while misinterpreting, misrepresenting and resorting to personal attacks as an argument to discard each and every one of the keep votes, all to justify the nominator's preference for a result. In the CfD that took place, the arguments for retention addressed policy by showing that this is an encyclopedic and defining characteristic backed by reliable and verifiable sources while those arguing for deletion insisted that it is not. Far too often, administrators put themselves in the position of dictating consensus in cases where the actual decision had none, and credit is due to User:Mike Selinker for closing this as "no consensus", when there was no consensus whatsoever for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the arguments for retention addressed policy by showing that this is an encyclopedic and defining characteristic backed by reliable and verifiable sources while those arguing for deletion insisted that it is not.
Show me one place in the CfD where a !keep voter made a legitimate attempt to disprove the !delete rationales. Also, show me a single policy or guideline that a !keep voter linked to. In fact, when I directly asked you to provide those sources you claimed exist (Note: linking to a google books search result page for "Jewish inventor" is not doing that), you neglected to respond. Perhaps because you know very well there are none? It's pretty easy to type "backed by verifiable sources" and then not show where that's true. It's pretty much what you've been doing in every single Jewish AfD you've participated in recently. (as shown above) I think you need to stop treating these CfD/AfD nominations so personally, and start looking at the bigger picture. WP:OCAT doesn't cease to exist just because you don't like the nomination. Bulldog123 22:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and also... I'd like a direct citation of each place I "misinterpreted," "misrepresented," and "resorted to personal attacks" in the above rationale. I find it baffling that typing out the exact words that were said by each !keep voter is "misrepresenting" their point. Bulldog123 22:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the fact that you want a different result and are dissatisfied with the close. Your arguments were responded to at the CfD in question and your insistence that there is a standard that participants must "disprove" the arguments of those with differing opinions at XfD is nonexistent. The closing administrator weighed the arguments for and against retention and concluded that there was no consensus for deletion, as there was none. You argue here that a different closing administrator, perhaps one with preconceived opinions on the subject matching yours, might possibly have closed this in your favor by summarily discarding all keep votes. However you provide no evidence that the close was improper or violated policy, which is the relevant question here. Alansohn (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CfD is WP:NOTAVOTE and definitely not a poll. It's a discussion and arguably a debate. In a debate, you discuss with one another why your point is valid and the other's is invalid. I'd like to be shown where the !keep voters attempted to disprove the !delete voters rationales. Again, I'd also like a direct citation where I "misinterpreted," "misrepresented," and "resorted to personal attacks" in the above rationale. Thanks. Bulldog123 22:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and nowhere in WP:DR does it say one can only bring something to Deletion Review if an admin violates "policy." Not sure where you're gleaming that from. I think the closer simply focused way too much on "quantity" instead of "quality," which could be considered an "improper" close. Bulldog123 22:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Closing admin read consensus accurately. I've just read the last AFD myself and come to the same conclusion. Its a no consensus that leans but not conclusively to delete. The previous DRV was overturn to no consensus, nothing changed. Szzuk (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the problem with overturning this is a "quantity"-related one, I'd ask the closer of this deletion review to consider relisting the CfD so individuals (other than the ones who have already !voted) be allowed to put in their 2 cents. Bulldog123 22:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete as the intersection is not notable (this has been established in the list's AfD). Most of the "inventors" in this category are just scientists who made significant breakthroughs. They did not "invent" things. You can discover electricity (superfluidity, etc.), but you cannot invent it. I guess the usual suspects will attempt to influence this vote too. We shall see.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't anything in the discussion that would argue against a purge of inappropriate content. So if there are non-Jews or non-inventors in the category, I think everyone would agree that they should be removed from the category, assuming the category continues to exist.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - While I supported deletion in the debate, I defer to this closing admin's judgment in this particular closure. This debate was open for a very long time, and I think that's because a lot of people were scared to close such a contentious category debate either way. To overturn this is proving those admins were right to steer clear of this, and I think admins who step in for such a closure should be given somewhat generous leeway in whatever they decide, else we foster an environment where more and more steer clear of anything contentious and debates such as these are held open far longer than they should be. VegaDark (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's really arguable to say this is such a "contentious" category. I think it was just left open so long because people forgot about it. In fact, if it was relisted the CfD again and just have new people come in and !vote (not the regulars), I'm pretty positive community opinion would be clear. Nearly all the old CfDs were just overrun by the so-called "regulars." (many of whom are indefed, by the way) This category has long been used as a pawn piece because some people took offense at recent Jewish-related and ethnicity-related deletions. (In fact, the last DRV, was instigated by User:Badagnani who only brought it back several months later for WP:POINT reasons. Check the history if you don't believe me. He has since been indefed for related reasons). Bulldog123 13:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the last DRV regarding this category was unanimously overturned to no consensus, the motive of the editor who initiated it is rather beside the point. Further, that overturned CFD was closed as listify. As the list no longer exists, the result of that prior CFD would be irrelevant even if it hadn't been overturned at DRV. postdlf (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but if there's no consensus, the category can be freely renominated for deletion. I regret that OVERCAT wasn't clear enough to make the outcome apparent. I'm concerned that enforcing OVERCAT becomes a popularity contest. --Bsherr (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Clearly no consensus was expressed in the discussion, and none of the arguments for deletion were strong enough to override the divided community sentiment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - There was no consensus was expressed in the discussion. Even the DRV nom agrees that "there was no shared consensus". Also, "a way to game the system" is to (1) list a discussion[1] and then (2) !vote in that same discussion.[2] Nice example you set for the kids. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should read up on how DRVs are supposed to be made before making a ridiculous comment like that. Bulldog123 14:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the no consensus close. Anyone who pretends there is actually consensus here on these categories (and the similar lists) is deluding themselves. I wish there were--I wish there were a basis for saying overturn to keep, and reverse the deletions of all similar categories & lists, but I don't think enough people understand yet that fuzziness is inevitable in anything dealing with human affairs to counter the ones who think that ethnicity is a taboo subject. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was no consensus for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or renominateoverturn to delete- I think it's safe to say that this CfD would have ended up at DRV no matter how it had been closed (no consensus, delete or Ni!), so I don't think it's possible to fault Mike for stepping forward to close a long, complicated and month-old discussion. On the merits of the discussion, I think that Bulldog's assessment of the balance of arguments is accurate. The main "keep" arguments were offered by Alansohn and Brewcrewer, yet both relied on unsubstantiated assertions or assumptions (namely, that the intersection "has been the subject of multiple reliable and verifiable sources" and "their ethnicity/religion has a significant effect of their career"). In light of the absence of other {Religion} inventors or {Ethnicity} inventors categories, as well as the dubiousness of Jewish invention as a head article, I think that the burden of proof should be substantially on those who think the category should be an exception to the rule. -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to find sources but the trouble with categories is that there's nowhere to put them. The list should be brought back so that footnotes can be added to substantiate the entries. And guess who invented the footnote? See Lisa Alcalay Klug (2008), "Jewish Inventions", Cool Jew, p. 15. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My favorite part of DRV is when people bring sources they don't even look at. Your source there is less than a handful of sentences presenting no content whatsoever and is right above a section entitled "Jew York Landmarks" with comments like "The Empire State Building was Jewish when King Kong was up there. When King Kong fell down, it was no longer Jewish." If you want this discussion to be taken seriously, at least put some effort into finding sources that actually comply with some kind of notability standard. Bulldog123 14:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy to find sources which identify certain inventors as Jews or certain Jews as inventors, but it is not so easy to find sources which give validity to the intersection of the two: i.e., to the topic of "Jewish invention" or "Judaism and invention". By the way, I can't view the text of the page but the information might make a nice addition to Note (typography)—if only there was a good place to put it. -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're having trouble with that one, here's another source: Laurie Rozakis (2007), "Jewish Inventors", The Portable Jewish Mother, pp. 34–35. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one I can view, thank you. However, the source is of the type I mentioned: it identifies certain inventors who happen to be Jewish (or, certain Jews who happen to be inventors), but it does not discuss the topic of "Jews and invention" beyond making the marginally related, tongue-in-cheek statement that "Jews are especially well represented in the sciences, no doubt because their doting Jewish mothers encourage education". -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, if presented a choice between a list and a category, I would choose the list in this case. A list of Jewish inventors still may have a problem of scope, but at least the issue affects only one page and such a list is not without precedent (e.g., the lists of Jewish inventors in the sources that you cited). A category, on the other hand, affects many pages. In addition, a list can (unlike a category) offer additional value in the form of supplemental information (e.g., compare List of Italian inventors, which is currently inferior to the category, with List of Russian inventors). -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was no consensus for deletion. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, a reasonable close given the discussion. The more we overturn closes in tough cases, the less likely anyone will want to close a tough case. This is well within the closer's discretion. I believe that those in favour of keeping are wrong, of course. Any category can be renominated for deletion after a "no consensus" close, so the best solution may be to just renominate and hope that those in favour of keeping will see the weakness of their position. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comments. Sorry, I wasn't aware this discussion was going on. Let me see if I can clarify my close. The Jewish categories are always challenging because there's both an ethnicity and a religious component to Judaism. We unanimously support categorization by nationality, but it isn't quite a nationality, and we have a much higher bar for religious-specific categories. So to oversimplify this case, we have a lot of keep votes arguing for the nationality standard, and a lot of delete votes arguing for the religion standard. The latter says no because there is no Jewish way of invention, as there is no Hindu or Christian way of invention. Nationality/ethnicity is a matter of location, but religion is judged by the standard of ideas, and the ideas of invention are perceived as universal. Based on previous closes such as this, the latter group is gaining steam, and I wouldn't be surprised if it drowns out the former group soon. But it was not preeminent in this discussion, and that's the only thing I was closing. Hope that helps.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A side comment on the nominator's last note: I appreciate that, but I am indeed aware of those previous nominations. A DRV discussion is better than me taking one side's request without hearing from the other. Not that I would have changed my closing argument regardless, but I'd prefer to hear multiple sides first, and have someone else make the call if I did it right. I appreciate that everyone seems to be willing to lay off the invective in such a potentially contentious discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that this was a reasonable close had more than two of the !keep arguments had even a shred of sensible argumentation in them. I think there's a point - and especially in this case - where closing something as "no consensus" is the equivalent of "accepting that people can troll their way into keeping a category solely if it doesn't suit them." I'd love for anyone to explain how User:Peterkingiron's, User:Occuli's, and User:Epeefleche's !keep votes had any relevance whatsoever to the discussion... or any relevant content in them other than the words "keep." In any other CfD closure, a !vote like "Keep - Potatoes. User:Blahblah" would be outright dismissed, but because this is a - god forbid - Jewish occupation category, it gets extra special treatment? This whole argument about the category being "contentious" is utterly misleading anyway. There has always been - outside of the "regulars" as Therexbanner accurately points out - a consensus to delete such categories. User:IZAK maintains a long list of equivalent Jewish occupation categories that have been deleted for the same reason. What's the point of waiting a year to re-nominate? Just to give it a longer time to rot and spread to wikipedia mirrors? Really now. Everyone knows nobody is going to make an attempt to clean up this category. All though, given the sources User:Colonel Warden presented earlier, I suppose it would be reasonable to have every entry removed except for the handful in his source. Bulldog123 17:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bulldog, I think it's quite clear that you disagree with me, and I doubt I'm going to be able to change your mind. I've explained my rationale, and others can judge as they feel fit.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly I'm not trying to convince anyone to overturn anymore, but I'd like it to be known that this drive-by keep-bomb method that many users are engaging in (as KbDank mentioned above) is not going unnoticed... and hopefully will be taken less seriously in the future. Bulldog123 18:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In case it matters, I personally believe that the keep-side argument is weaker, and am not in favor of Jewish-only occupation categories. But I have a hard time with the logic "other than the people who always disagree with me, there is consensus in favor of my position." Labeling them "the regulars" doesn't change the fact that they're entitled to their opinions, and those opinions deserve to be taken into account. My unsolicited advice is that you try to build a larger community around a consistent change, and maybe the change will happen. Take a look at the brilliant job by User:BrownHairedGirl at managing a complicated consensus-building project around cities, towns, and villages, which had the side effect of galvanizing a whole lot of people who supported those changes.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
