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. Following a promise I made on my talk page, I have changed my close to "no consensus" to reflect the outcome of the deletion review of List of Jewish actors as well as the "keep result" of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Jewish entertainers. There were generally similar arguments used in all of these discussions, and the former list is almost exactly identical to this list, just more broad. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original close

This is essentially the same thing as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors. The main differences in the articles are that this one uses a list, not table, format, and that this one only includes Jewish-American entries under the broader "entertainers" category, rather than just actors.

The arguments here are slightly different than those made in the other AfD. The main concern raised here was that the intersection of Jewish Americans and entertainers is not notable. Several sources were presented to show that there has indeed been coverage about Jews and their role(s) in the entertainment industry, but it was not conclusively shown the the sources do more than identify Jewish actors/entertainers rather than show the notability of the actual intersection (i.e., the importance of Jewish American entertainers to the entertainment industry). In addition, this did not address other concerns.

The article is not organized well, with poorly-defined criteria for inclusion. While AfD is not for cleanup, and the article was fairly well-sourced, legitimate concerns were raised about the definition of "Jewish American" (as a strictly religious term, or one that also has ethnic/nationality/cultural connotations) as well as the scope of "entertainer". The former definition would deal with WP:BLPCAT, which does (as Mkativerata explains here) apply to lists and other forms of categorization, whether in the category namespace or not. As in that AfD, there is no consensus here on whether Judaism should be judged as more than just a religion and therefore whether it should be subject to BLPCAT. However, this alone does not warrant deletion.

The issue of maintaining the list and its potential for BLP issues is a relatively minor one considering the scope of this AfD. The issues surrounding the sourcing and organization of the article are not significant enough for deletion based on them alone (which would be a rare occasion at any rate).

Given the lack of a conclusive establishment of why this intersection is notable, as well as considering the very relevant decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors, it seems like consensus leans more to delete than not existing. Due to the canvassing allegations, it took a fairly long examination of this debate for me to reach this conclusion, and I apologize if I missed an argument someone felt was significant. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American entertainers[edit]

List of Jewish American entertainers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable intersection, unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates, where the intersection is addressed by many reliable secondary sources. By its very nature, this list is a never-ending WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:V-violation magnet. I'm also trying to address the larger, systemic issue here; Wikipedia is littered with dozens of these lists, most of which suffer from the same issues; so why do the least problematic of them create such angst, while the most problematic are not seen as a concern? This needs to be addressed in a broad, not narrow, way. Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close Violation WP:POINT "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, enforcing it consistently... Such tactics are highly disruptive and can lead to a block (possibly indefinite) or ban. Wikipedia is not perfectly consistent, and its rules are not a code of law. Issues with rules or practices should be addressed through plain discussion, not through irony or making a game of it." There is no serious suggestion here that WP editors should debate the article mentioned, the nominator is merely trying to make a point about a different AfD he does not like.betsythedevine (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC) As Jayiq asserts that this is a sincere nomination, I am redacting what was my original belief, that he created it to make a WP:POINT.betsythedevine (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have to say that that's utter nonsense. This AfD is in perfectly good faith, about an article that obviously discusses a non-notable intersection. And I notice that you didn't make the same claim when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates was also discussed on the other AfD page, and subsequently nominated for deletion. Please redact your untrue comment, discuss whether you think List of Jewish American entertainers should exist, and please act with more personal consistency in the future. Jayjg (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in this nomination pro or con. From my limited knowledge, religious intolerance once segregated Jewish from "mainstream" entertainers--so being Jewish could well have impacted the entertainment careers of many. I would hope that the article uses some sensible rule about who is Jewish and who is not. I would hope the article shows respect for the wishes of living people at least by making self-identification a test for whether someone is Jewish. But this article is far outside my interests and experience. betsythedevine (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd how you have such a detailed knowledge of, interest in, and vehement opinions about Jewish Nobel Prize winners, but none whatsoever about Jewish American entertainers. One would have thought your lengthy assertions about policy regarding the Jewish Nobel Prize winner list, particularly in relation to BLP, would be equally of concern to you here. Isn't everyone deserving of the same BLP protection? These continuing inconsistencies are troubling. Jayjg (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd how you consider my invocation of policy about WP:POINT as a personal attack, but don't consider it a personal attack to throw around speculative comments about my motivation and the shocking inconsistency that I fail to edit many articles that might have BLP issues. You can see from my contribution list that I often edit articles of scientists, rarely those of entertainers. My interest in List of Jewish Nobel laureates originated in the repeated efforts by some to use it to tag Andre Geim as unmodifiedly "Jewish." To clear up another matter that seems to trouble you, I remembered reading a Feynman statement that seemed apropos and was gratified to find it today as the first google hit for "Feynman Judaism." betsythedevine (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've neither made any comments about your motivation, nor claimed that it is a "schocking inconsistency that [you] fail to edit many articles that might have BLP issues". I've also never felt nor expressed any "trouble" about the "matter" of Feynman's statement. I read your comments with increasing dismay, because it almost seems as if you've just skimmed my comments, picking out individual words, without actually trying to understand what I've actually written. Falsely claiming I made this nomination as a WP:POINT is a violation of three policies, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL. For what I'm really hoping is the last time, please redact that claim. Jayjg (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, except that there is no article on Judaism and entertainment in America or Jewish American entertainment, so your argument is moot. Simply having an article on Jews and Judaism doesn't give you license to create any article that is remotely related to Judaism, like List of Jewish Yugoslavian politicians. I have replied to DGG's comments on the original page, but I will not repost my response here. SnottyWong squeal 22:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument". Also, I am particularly interested in Nick's view.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, in the (unusual) case of Jews, a nation that was largely dispersed 2,000 years ago from its homeland and geographic borders, it is not appropriate to delete. The Jewish nation lives largely, though now not wholly, in the Jewish diaspora. Under Israel's Law of Return, all members of the Jewish nation are automatically entitled, by virtue of being members of the Jewish nation, to return to the geographic borders of Israel, and become Israeli citizens. Other religions are, in the "normal case," distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Atheist nation per se. Those who are members of these religions are not members of a nation or "people." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion, but are also a nation. In addition to the other points presented above, this is one that militates in favor or a !keep.

  1. ^ "The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member" (April 25, 1915), University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, Retrieved on November 30, 2010
  2. ^ Palmer, Henry, A History of the Jewish Nation (1875), D. Lothrop & Co., Retrieved on November 30, 2010
  3. ^ The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 7: Berlin Years, Albert Einstein, "The Jewish Nation is a living fact" (June 21, 1921), Princeton University Press, Retrieved on November 30, 2010

--Epeefleche (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel is a country. Judaism is a religion. Judaism is not a country. There is no country called Judaism on the map. You cannot obtain citizenship in the country of Judaism. There may have been a Jewish nation 2,000 years ago, but there isn't one today. This is why we don't have a List of Czechoslovakian entertainers, because Czechoslovakia no longer exists. The Jewish diaspora is not a sovereign nation with a government. It is a way of describing Jews who live outside of Israel. Let's not get bogged down with semantics. List of French entertainers is not the same as List of Jewish American entertainers. SnottyWong yak 18:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you want to argue that there is a "Jewish nation", there is certainly not a "Jewish American" nation, which is what would have to exist in order for your argument to be relevant to the discussion about this particular article. SnottyWong spill the beans 18:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It is perfectly standard to have such intersections -- no reasearch is needed; see even some of the lists reflected earlier on this page.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who has been canvassed by Epeefleche to participate in this AfD should come forward to quell suspicion. Bulldog123 02:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

he asked me on my user talk p., as anyone can see. I think I am taking a different and much stronger position than he probably expected. I am doing so not in response to him, but to what I think of the arguments and pointyness of those trying to delete a large group of encyclopedic content. This accusation seems a red herring--I do not think any oif the people listed above have commented here. The people who have commented here are noted mainly for their participation in topics about Judaism , or about lists, taking various positions, just as is desirable at a discussion. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I heard from him on my talk page and I had already weighed in here - frankly I was a little annoyed to see his message this am...Modernist (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Epeefleche has a long history of canvassing attempts. He targeted you specifically because he knew your position on these types of AfDs. Whether you would have found this AfD with or without his help is irrelevant. The point is... he did canvass you in bad faith - and there's a strong likelihood he canvassed others (especially long-dormant editors who seem to be popping up and !voting). Bulldog123 04:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've not canvassed. Your uncivil accusations are a violation of wp:agf and wp:civil. And, of course, it is noteworthy that the only editors other than me to have commented at all the Jewish-list-AfDs are you, Snotty, and Jayjg--with 17 delete !votes and 1 keep !vote among the three of you. And of course, when it comes to notifying delete !voters of these AfDs, apparently Bull has been active -- somewhat curiously, precisely the sort of activity he accuses me of. But I'll be happy to leave all editors editing/who edited related AfDs a note about related on-going AfDs so that that is clear.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Bulldog123, you'd better re-read WP:CANVAS. Over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates you wrote "User DGG is an example of active canvassing. User:DGG is notorious for being an inclusionist." Epeefleche's question to that editor was appropriate in its being limited, nueutral, non-partisan, and open... no matter how you personally might wish to declare it. But yes, DGG is certainly "notorious" alright... but for being respected, reasonable, and neutral... even if seen as inclusionist. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Epeefleche, I think Bulldog 123 behavior speak volumes for itself-from my point of view it's not only uncivil or matter of not assuming good faith, it also consist personal attack. --Gilisa (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. In the normal course, Wikipedia has an approach for addressing the issue of long pages, outlined in Wikipedia:Article size, which is to split the article into two or more smaller pages. Page size issues are not generally fixed by deleting the page.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racial and Religious categories are A Bad Thing. After seeing disputes and arguments over whether certain chess players really are Jewish or not (especially when said players don't make a big deal of their religion or ethnicity themselves), I've come to the conclusion that racial and religious categories (like "Jewish chess players") are A Bad Thing. And the same goes for ethnic categories. For the purposes of Wikipedia, I don't care what race or religion a person is(*), unless it directly relates to their field (a Jewish theologians category, for instance, is quite appropriate). The categories seem to only exist for racial and religious point scoring ("See how many eminent people in field X belong to my race/religion!")

- Just something to think about. --Confession0791 talk 10:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you used the magic words "racial" and "religious" and of-course added "categories" and now surely it's bad thing. Well, I think generalizations like you did are bad thing, I think it's somewhat and without intention demagogic and avoid any real and in depth argument. You are right that there are those who say "well there are more people in certain category of ethnicity X than of ethnicity Y. But the purpose of the categories as I see it is not to tell who have more. It's informative categories after all, like categories of people from certain city. Also, please keep in mind that more than 90% of the ethnic categories get to AfD regard Jew. Not English, Germans or anything else-Jews almost only, and that's really strange and bad thing.--Gilisa (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please keep in mind that more than 90% of the ethnic categories get to AfD regard Jew. Not English, Germans or anything else-Jews almost only, and that's really strange and bad thing. That's because 90% of Jewish lists on wikipedia get transformed into POV-pushing ethnic-pride-and-Jewish-cultural-promotion pages by over-zealous users. Also because Jewish lists appear to be the only ones that exist: List of German American entertainers, List of English American entertainers Bulldog123 08:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have concrete evidence of this? --Confession0791 talk 21:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listing people by nation gives thousands of results in some cases. Not sure why people feel the need to put themselves or others into any such categories at all, but it is covered in books and the news media, so I say Keep. Dream Focus 15:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, they also have awards ceremonies just for various ethnic groups, and these are considered notable awards, and covered in the mainstream media even. Dream Focus 15:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, to give a more reasonable example, List of Swedish American entertainers (with people like Steven Soderbergh. Bulldog123 00:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they had notable awards for that, and the news media covered it, then that'd be fine. Remember, articles exist on subjects covered by the media or which people agree are notable. You only need one of those, not both. Dream Focus 22:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that this article has an astonishing 556 references. It is one of the best-sourced lists we have at the Project, both in number of references and in terms of references demonstrating amply the focus of RSs on this intersection, and consequently its inherent notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh... we don't need to list them anywhere. If their Judaism is known, they will simply have a category. If their Judaism has a bearing on their careers, then they will have a list. What point am I missing here? Bulldog123 08:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will find many of the points you seem to be missing within the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. "Wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, lists (including embedded lists, like lists included in See also sections), and navigation templates (of which article series boxes are one type). The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages ... these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. ... Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted just because they overlap. ... arguing that a Category or List is duplicative of the other in a deletion debate is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your sole argument for retention of this list is "Do it because it doesn't say we can't." The list has been around for over three years with nobody there to clean-up or change it. That's really all I need to point out. Bulldog123 18:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope I can speak for all of the many hundreds of editors of this list over the past six years when I wish you all the very best in your post-Wikipedia endeavors now that you have finally pointed out all that you really need to point out. Perhaps you will find other uses for your great talent of putting falsehoods in boldface. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you check my contrib record, you'll see that I have been fairly actively editing in the last several months - but even if I had not, what's wrong with being semi-retired anyway? Yes, Epeefleche left a message at my talk page, which I did think was a case of canvassing and I wish he hadn't done that. But with the amount of drama at ANI surrounding Epeefleche's block, it would have been hard not to notice this topic anyway. Plus, as Stuart Jamieson noted below, even before Epeefleche's misguided canvassing campaign started, I had already participated in the Jewish Nobel Laureates AfD so this bru-ha-ha was already on my radar screen. By the way, just earlier today, I !voted "delete" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors, so I am not beholden to any single position on the matters of these lists AfDs. I have been on Wikipedia for quite a while, wrote quite a few articles and have more than four times as many total edits than you. I should think that my opinion counts here as much as anyone else's. Nsk92 (talk)
  • Please take any further comments about Epeefleche's messages to ANI or start a RFC/U. "Semi-Retired" is not retired Nsk92 had already !voted on Jewish Nobel Laureates [31] before Epeefleche sent his messages and also !voted on chinese nobel laureates mentioned there (as are actors and entertainers) and not in Epeefleche's message. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flagrantly canvassed users should be pointed out. Just because he visited the Nobel Prize list, doesn't mean he'd visit this list, Stuart. Not saying your opinion isn't valid either, Nsk, but your reason for deleting Jewish actors (QUOTE: too broad in scope, better suited to be treated as a category rather than a list. - Nsk92 [32]) is completely incongruoent with your reason for keeping this list. This list is even more broad and actually CONTAINS a huge swatch of Jewish actors. Basically, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever -- which should be pointed out too -- as it appears disingenuous. Bulldog123 07:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So let's take a few quotes from your sources... shall we? From the latter, we have material like: "...George Jessel retained a Jewish persona on radio, they were less successful than those like Jack Benny, who did not. Jessel spoke rapidly in a recognizably Jewish accent and talked about urban subjects. Despite his table marriage to a Jew and his ongoing relationship with the Jewish community, Benny managed to avoid being widely perceived as Jewish by carefully eschewing Jewish accents or jokes..." and "...Chaplin, was not, however, the first actor to portray Hitler on film. That honor belongs to Moe Howard of the Three Stooges. The three Jewish comedians who made up the Stooges starred in three anti-Nazi films, beginning with You Nazty Spy in 1940. The Stooges smuggled Yiddish into their films..." Please explain what that has to do with Scarlett Johansson, David Blaine, Katie Couric, and the band Anthrax (band). Bulldog123 00:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll let that one speak for itself. Bulldog123 07:30, 4 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.
More