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. The consensus is that this is not an arbitrary or trivial intersection -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Jewish entertainers[edit]

List of British Jewish entertainers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Per recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers‎‎. If anything, this intersection is even less notable and more arbitrary than "Jewish American entertainers". Jayjg ^(talk) 07:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Pretty much for the same exact reasons stated in the AfD for List of Jewish American entertainers ...with one thing to add. The "British Jewish" connection seems much more synthesized than the "Jewish American" one. Jewish American is well-defined -- a distinct ethnic & cultural group that many consider themselves part of. British Jews appears to be drafted on a minimal amount of sources and a lot of OR - making the "entertainer" intersection even worse. Bulldog123 09:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, please also note WP:LISTCRUFT. IZAK (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the result of the recent AfD for American Jewish entertainers, and per WP:NOTDIR as a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. SnottyWong ^verbalize 14:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as non-trivial intersection per here, here, here, and here, among many others. (I'm aware of the Jewish-American entertainers AfD, I didn't comment in that because of self-imposed abstinence over the canvassing issue, and if it's relevant to anyone I believe that was wrongly decided, on the basis that there a huge number of books covering the topic of Jewish-American entertainers in detail - for Heaven's sake, it was the subject of an Emmy-nominated Simpsons episode, is how ingrained in the popular consciousness it is - and it's immensely disappointing that no one bothered to look.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, let's go one by one. Your first link is to this book Jewish Theatre. I used the google search-inside method and couldn't find any explicit references to British Jewish entertainers/actors/etc - so I don't know why you provided that link. This is not a List of people associated with Jewish theatre. Your second link is this book on Jewish centers & peripheries: Europe between America and Israel fifty years ... By Selwyn Ilan Troen. The phrase "Jewish entertainers" or "Jewish actors" shows up exactly once, providing no information whatsoever on this intersection. Your third link Hollywood V. Hard Core: How the Struggle Over Censorship Created the Modern ... By Jon Lewis again mentions Jewish entertainers or actors once... and only to mention that they changed their name to fit in. Your fourth link is to a documentary about "Jewish entertainers" [1]. Of course, neither you nor I have seen it so there's not a lot to say. However, the synopsis suggests it focuses heavily on Yiddish theatre. This is not a List of British actors in Yiddish theatre. Bulldog123 06:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk | Contribs ) 10:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same as the already deleted entry. Non-notable intersection.Griswaldo (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—I'm a little stunned to find that the List of Jewish American entertainers article has been deleted. Jewish immigrants have had a long and successful association with the entertainment business in the United States, particularly in the film industry. Why wouldn't we want to cover that?—RJH (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that list, with 556 refs? See the discussion at the AfD referenced above, for views on both sides.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep And restore the List of Jewish American entertainers. Why was it deleted and not the List of Italian American entertainers? or the List of Muslim writers and poets? or British Jews or List of Irish American actors? Note that the Irish American actors list includes many actors whose ancestors immigrated to the U.S. before Ireland became a country. What about List of British Bangladeshis, and List of black Britons, and List of British Indians and British Kurds and British Arabs??? How odd of Wikipedia to choose the Jews and only the Jews to delete. Grow up and come to grips with the fact that Jews are members of a religion and of a people that achieved statehood in ancient times and again in 1948. Treating Jews differently than other peoples (Arabs, Irish) and other religions is called anti-Semitism.Wm.Pittman (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish American entertainers, List of British Arab entertainers, List of British American entertainers? Anti-semitism you say? Bulldog123 21:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Wm.Pittman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Two days old. See: [2]. Bulldog123 06:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable intersection. No identification criteria (never will be, as it is subjective, unlike citizenship).--Therexbanner (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For reference, Wikipedia doesn't necessarily have a problem with subjective criteria. Much like issues of religion and names, we resolve issues like this by reference to how the person self-identifies and how they are described in reliable sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You still haven't stated what criteria you want for this list (if it were to be kept). And why do you assume you can get a consensus on that criteria? Bulldog123 00:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's no business of mine to define the criteria; that's a job for the talk page, rather than the AfD. But clearly the list is CAPABLE of having clearly defined criteria, as there's no serious debate anywhere that we're capable of defining the terms "British", "Jewish" and "entertainer" separately. I'd suggest it be handled in the same way as any other page where these issues come up - by reference to the way the individual self-identifies, and how they are described in the reliable sources. If you've got reliable sources calling them "British", "Jewish" and "an entertainer", then bingo, they're on the list, if necessary with a printed caveat detailing other sources that disagree. The ability to add that caveat, and the sources, is a strong reason why this should be dealt with as a list rather than as a category. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• When you get a chance, scroll through TALK:List of British Jews, and you'll see just how contentious users can be regarding the criteria. It's been a virtual stalemate for years, and that's what Jayjg is trying to point out here. That this article is an ever-repeating magnet for WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and (in some ways) WP:V violations. I know that you have faith in people's ability to reach a consensus... but it's blind faith. The article (British Jews) has been around for almost four years (maybe more?) and we have yet to agree on a criteria. It's simply not going to happen. Look, we couldn't even reach a consensus on List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Why on earth do you expect us to reach an agreed-upon criteria for this? Bulldog123 01:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That an article is on a contentious issue and attracts strongly divergent views is not reason for deletion. Otherwise, we would delete the articles on abortion, Israel, and everyone named George Bush. If anything, Wikipedia readers benefit from such articles existing, especially when those editing them edit honestly and in good faith.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That an article is incapable of finding a unifying criteria by which to include its listified entries, leading to numerous WP:BLP and WP:V violations... that is a legitimate reason. Bulldog123 02:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's not. There is no difference between the difficulty in determining inclusion criteria for "British Jew" and determining the inclusion criteria for either "British" or "Jew" separately. There are any number of things on Wikipedia that editors have different opinions or, or definitions of. If we were to avoid providing content wherever there are fundamental disputes about core aspects of the content, the result would be the removal of almost every article on race, religion, war, politics and evolution. If you can't sway others to your viewpoint as to what should and shouldn't be in the article, it may be that you're wrong, or at least that you're not sufficiently right that there's a public interest in the debate continuing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• List of British Jews is not under consideration here, so any difficulty with determining who is a British Jew is not a problem specific to this list, and there is no reason to delete it in isolation. If you really think who is a British Jew is unverifiable, then list the whole structure for deletion rather than picking a sublist at random. postdlf (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The non-triviality of the intersection is obvious. A wp:before search would have shown it, Dust provides some examples, and the intro now provides additional examples of its non-triviality for over a century. More is reflected in any of numerous google searches one could undertake, but which--given the above--seems redundant and unnecessary. In addition, the fact that the list is accessed typically 150-300 times per day suggests that it is indeed notable in the eyes of wikipedia readers. Agree with Pitman that someone should undertake to have the close of the List of Jewish American entertainers overturned.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That should probably wait on the outcome of the List of Jewish Actors deletion review. Also, page hits are not evidence of notability. I used to run a blog that got about 1,000 hits a day, and I can assure you it still wasn't notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A relevant intersection backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Where? Bulldog123 23:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you can't be bothered to scroll up, the diff is here. And I'm quite willing to provide another half-dozen once you provide any cogent explanation of what's wrong with those. Or, y'know, even read them. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're going to be snide, I advise you pay closer attention. It's beginning to look like trolling. As you well know, I could find left-handed-actor refs stronger than those. Bulldog123 00:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You've made no effort to read the sources, as your statements about their contents are just plain wrong, and you spend some time excoriating a "documentary" which I'm not sure where you got it from but was certainly not something I linked. You also seem to be suffering from a difficulty with the term "entertainer", which Wikipedia handily defines as anyone engaged in "activity which provides a diversion or permits people to amuse themselves in their leisure time", thus including by definition anyone engaged in the craft of theatre whether an actor or otherwise. The sources detail roles for British Jewish entertainers on stage, the building of specific Jewish theatres specifically to provide venues for British Jewish entertainers. "Jewish Theatre" spends a whole book just defining exactly who British Jewish entertainers are and what, exactly, makes a distinctly recognisable cultural group. Yiddish Theatre is a book length examination of an entire style of theatre by and for the Jewish, with substantial discussion of its history in Britain and the entertainers who have engaged with it. "Destination London" looks (in part) at how Jewish emigres fleeing World War II assimilated in Britain through a contribution to the British film industry. "Beyond marginality: Anglo-Jewish literature after the Holocaust" contains discussion of British Jewish writers, screenwriters, playwrights, performance poets, and comedians in the context of them being "Anglo-Jewish". Do you really have problems with these sources?- DustFormsWords (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ...you spend some time excoriating a "documentary" which I'm not sure where you got it from but was certainly not something I linked. With that comment, you just proved how disingenuous your "source finding" efforts are. The documentary was the very first link you provided. Presumably, you just typed "British Jewish entertainers" into google, pulled that up and linked to it without noticing that the entire article is about the documentary. We can all type "British Jewish entertainers" into Google Books and claim whatever shows up as evidence of a universally known intersection, but it's not going to convince anybody who actually looks into it. Also "excoriating" means to "censure or criticize severely." I'd love to see where I "severely criticized" the documentary. I just said I haven't seen it, so I can't comment on it. You've seen it?
• You've made no effort to read the sources I can only read up to what the limited view allows me, as can you (though, judging by your comments above - all you did was read the provided synopsis and synthesized the words "British Jewish" in).
• The sources detail roles for British Jewish entertainers on stage, the building of specific Jewish theatres specifically to provide venues for British Jewish entertainers. Page # link of said content please, including explicit references to British Jewish entertainers (using the wiki definition). If it's as thorough as you claim, that's great content for British Jewish theatre - though, since you're getting it from one source, it's pretty weighty. However, I'd like to know what any of this has to do with George Michael, Sharon Osbourne, Stephen Fry, Ludwig Karl Koch, Peter Sellers, Stephen Frears, Mark Ronson, Peter Green, Amy Winehouse, Rachel Weisz, Mike MendozaSophie Okonedo, and the other hundred people on that list. This is not a list of people having "some connection to British Jewish/Yiddish theatre." If you want to make it into that list, you're going to need to find consensus on it's take page, and from all the !keep voters here. I feel like a broken record, since I distinctly remember saying this already. Right now, the current list we have under AfD is an indiscriminate list of people who are Jewish and who are - by the definition you gave - "entertainers." That's the list under consideration now. That's the list that has been edited and maintained for years now. That's the list that most !keep voters are going to be fighting for... not your as-of-yet-to-exist list. If you want another list, under the criteria you specified, nobody is preventing you from creating it... but it's going to need a less ambiguous title that List of British Jewish entertainers. Bulldog123 04:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I guess some of us just rely on skimming Google Books, and some of us find sources on Google Books, and then research the books on bookseller websites, review sites, and ring their friends at the National Library and get them to check what they're actually about. I don't apologise for being in the second category. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable and not arbitrary. The intro to the list goes a long way towards establishing that there is a distinct cultural history here. In any event, this is an encyclopedic indexing of article subjects: a list of notable people of a particular notable ethnic group, subdivided by occupation. And that's enough. Many of the deletion arguments I see in this, and similar list AFDs, are proper ones for the deletion of categories given the limitations of that system and the problem of burdening articles with too many categories (see WP:OCAT), but there is no good reason or pragmatic need to apply the same standards to lists. Nor do we in practice; in most cases that categories are deleted on the basis of being an encyclopedic but non-notable intersection, the CFD usually results in a consensus for conversion to a list ("listifying"). I have some concern about the vagueness of "entertainer", but that's fixable, and I'm not going to bother with that now if none of the deletion comments are concerned with that nuance. postdlf (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable, encyclopeadic, and better sourced than the American Jewish one. per Dustformswords, Epeefleche and Postdlf. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep certainly not arbitrary, & it is probably correct that in the UK the demarcation is even sharper. There is not really a consensus about ethnic-occupation lists of this sort, but I think the balance is now towards accepting them. Obviously not indiscriminate, as it includes only those with a Wikipedia article. I adhere very strongly to the concept of notability as important for Wikipedia articles, & if we have articles on those who are not, we should deal with them. But while they stand, that's how we discriminate. "Jewish" can be a little more complicate than some ethnic categories, but ithis can be dealt with by using the broadest definition possible, and accepting any RS unjless its a living person, & they object to it. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination's assertion that British Jews are an arbitrary and non-notable selection of people is absurdly counterfactual. One can immediately find sources such as The Jews of Britain which prove the falsity of this assertion. The nomination makes no policy-based argument and seems directly contrary to core policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:IMPROVE. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must be at the wrong AfD. However, Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/British Jews doesn't seem to exist. Bulldog123 09:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In your own contribution above, you state, "The "British Jewish" connection seems much more synthesized than the "Jewish American" one.". You don't even mention the entertainer aspect. It seems clear that this nonsensical crusade is directed against the concept of Jewry - attempting to expurgate it from Wikipedia. I have therefore addressed this as it is the substantive point. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, my crusade - despite 4 of the 6 recent Jewish AfDs being nominated by different people - is to "wipe out Jewry from Wikipedia." Judging from this Two indef blocks already?, you're clearly not mature enough to be editing this encyclopedia, much less have your opinions be taken seriously. Bulldog123 18:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note the group notice for AFD edits, "Be aware ... that comments on people rather than the article is considered disruptive." Hmm, must fix the grammar of that. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All the information here is highly sourced, and those who have worked on this page have put forth such an effort to source this information that it clearly belongs. Linda Olive (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Unsourced" is not the reason for deletion. Bulldog123 18:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination claims that the topic is "less notable...". Notability turns on sourcing and so the sources are indeed material and relevant. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2010 (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.