Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American fraudsters of Jewish descent

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 delete. Speedily deleted by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of American fraudsters of Jewish descent[edit]

Endorse closure as speedied. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I happened upon these while looking at the new pages feed, and I'm not sure about the intent behind them. I think it definitely falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as rather random categories (fraudster + Jewish/Irish) - there's no connection between them (i.e. they're not fraudsters because they're Jewish/Irish, or the other way around), and the only reason I can think of to categorize them like this would be racism-intentioned synthesis (pardon the lack of good faith) which would somewhat become a WP:BLP concern. Unless that is confirmed, though, I think we should stick to the first issue. Ansh6 6 6 09:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't need to be an inherent connection as in List of Irish novelists. Nobody is claiming there is an inherent tendency for Irish people to be novelists. In fact many lists categorise by two informative characteristics, which have no implied causative connection eg. List of English-language Canadian game shows or List of hotels in Singapore, which are not hotels because they're in Singapore, or in Singapore because they're hotels. The connection itself is informative. Feel free to make lists for English Americans and African Americans, or Dutch South Africans (perhaps making one for all South Africans first like this for all Americans). There is no reason to delete these new ones. SpaceBobber (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogies are quite incorrect. More appropriate ones would be List of Irish novelists of German descent, List of English-language Canadian game shows with hosts from New York, or List of hotels in Singapore run by Pashtuns. This is the type of arbitrary categorization we have here. Another problem which you do not mention is the inclination of people to automatically link them, which is why it's a BLP issue. Ansh6 6 6 11:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can use even better analogies. American film directors of Japanese descent, American military personnel of Japanese descent, Fictional American people of Greek descent, American mixed martial artists of Italian descent. It's really amazing, there are thosands of these. I am not sure what the issue is here. SpaceBobber (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you ignored the second part of my comment. Anyways, I'm going to bed, it's almost 4 here. Ansh6 6 6 11:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So should we delete all lists in case people 'link them'? What can this even mean? Is there a link? Should we delete Fictional American people of Greek descent in case people think Greek Americans are all 'fictional'? Lol. SpaceBobber (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American fraudsters. I'm not sure if this is a recreation of a deleted article. But it's too short to be a list (that much should be uncontroversial). There's a clear difference between doing lists by nationality and lists by ethnic group: crime topics are often covered on a nation-by-nation basis, but there's no evidence that Jewish-American fraudsters are discussed as a group in reliable sources or that the ethnicity of these people had any relation to their crimes. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive821#List_of_Jewish_American_fraudsters --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:American criminals by ethnic or national origin SpaceBobber (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because there's a poorly-populated category doesn't mean it's a valid topic for a list. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You have to give a valid reason for deletion. SpaceBobber (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It does sometimes happen, of course, that a user will nominate an article for deletion out of a desire to censor or hide the content, but one should be able to respond to these nominations with reliable sources and policy-based arguments. If the deletion rationale really is that thin, it should be easy to refute." SpaceBobber (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (to continue from the above)... nor that there is any particular need to distinguish between Jewish-American fraudsters and Christian-American fraudsters or any other x-American fraudsters. Why would there be any need to differentiate between criminals on the basis of religion or culture unless the suggestion is that their religion or culture caused them to be otherwise more predisposed to fraudulent behaviour than those of other cultures/religions. Their culture is irrelevant to their crime, as is the case for most of those listed at Fraud#Notable_fraudsters. Stalwart111 10:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure culture is irrelevant to crime. That sounds like a rather bold claim which could be easily dispelled by any number of sources. But if it's true there is nothing to fear as no group will turn out to be overrepresented. Maybe you can take a look here and see if any group is overrepresented, which would be terrible if it was the case, since there is no connection according to you. But if it is true, well then it's true, so it's win-win. In any case, I'm not suggesting anything, just making a list with two characteristics like any other. There may or may not be a connection between homosexuality and acting, but it's still interesting to have a list. BTW I see Ponzi on your list so a list of Italian Americans should be made too. Thanks. SpaceBobber (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Culture, generally, is relevant to crime, but one's cultural heritage (unless related specifically to the crime, like religious terrorism) is not. Shapiro is a Yiddish surname... should Nevin Shapiro be on your list? What about Arthur A. Goldberg? It's a patently ridiculous categorisation and borderline racist. Of course you're "suggesting something". We'll assume good faith, but we're not idiots. I also strongly suspect the many of the single-purpose accounts who have made creating and defending these lists their life's work are probably connected. The editing patterns certainly suggest as much. Stalwart111 11:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure name calling will pass as a logical argument here. None of the other categorisations are 'ridiculous', 'racist', 'suggestive' or 'quack' in your mind. What so different about this one? I really don't understand. I don't see Shapiro described as Jewish, but will add Goldberg now. Thanks. SpaceBobber (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments above. SpaceBobber (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would have speedied it if this debate had not been started. It's an incomplete list with no context and no references. Deb (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References are in the articles per List of American mobsters of Irish descent. I plan to expand these and create new lists. How many individuals are needed to be acceptable? SpaceBobber (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were only two names when the article was posted - which definitely doesn't constitute a "list". More importantly, I think we should be very chary about allowing the posting of other articles that label someone a fraudster or similarly derogatory term without including references in the list as well as the articles. It would be different if the subject of the list were uncontroversial, such as "Cooks of Jewish descent".Deb (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've opened an SPI here, if it turns up anything this whole mess can be G5'd. Ansh6 6 6 12:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's also a problem that the criteria for inclusion are unclear. The title mentions "Jewish descent" but the description of the list mentions "Jewish American". The two are not the same (e.g. some people of Jewish descent aren't Jewish by most people's criteria, and some Jewish Americans are converts or otherwise not ethnically Jewish). --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to you making this point on 'Jewish American Musicians'. Oh, sorry, I thought you had an NPOV for a second. My bad. SpaceBobber (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted as both a recreation and the work of banned sockpuppets. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 16 December 2013 (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.