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. There is general agreement that this list is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization (WP:NOTDIR #6).  Sandstein  06:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish inventors[edit]

List of Jewish inventors (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)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Not only is this a messy, unsourced, unmaintained list that has already once been deleted here, but it seems to redefine what it means to be an "inventor" - listing numerous vaccine discoverers and mathematicians as "inventors." It's also an irrelevant intersection for both religion and ethnicity lists. Bulldog123 02:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Give them a credit for not listing biblical characters. But, honestly, practically all "yes we did it!" lists of fooians are just as bad. The whole bunch should be reviewed as a package (and decided case by case). East of Borschov 09:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userify. No prejudice against recreation if inventor is treated in a narrow, non-controversial way. People who are primarily known for something else (science, art, politics) but just happen to have a few patents registered to them shouldn't be there. East of Borschov 08:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As with a similar AfD, there is really nothing notable or significant about being Jewish and being an inventor. Get rid of all these trivial, vanity lists. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Borschov, trivial intersection, overly vague criteria. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The result of the earlier debate was "no consensus", with the delete votes being based on the existence of no similar articles. We now have List of African-American inventors, for whatever that's worth, and List of inventors killed by their own inventions. More importantly, race/religion and profession is a non-trivial intersection, many inventors are notable FOR being Jewish inventors and vice versa, there's a tolerably clear (if overly wide) definition of inventor at invention, and in as much as there's debate about what entries belong on the list that's a matter for discussion on the talk page, not AfD. See WP:SALAT for further discussion of the criteria for acceptable stand-alone lists. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American engineers. No, this list was recreated after once already being deleted. And it was - in no ways - improved from the previous version. Bulldog123 05:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've expressed elsewhere how dissatisfied I am with group AfDs, and it's borne out here by that discussion having no mention of the term "inventor" and instead focusing on the uselessness of an article on Jewish engineers, with which I agree. There was no relevant debate on the inventor article - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Trivial complaints. Nothing more. Bulldog123 06:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That sounds like the utterance of a man who's run out of arguments. Listen, there'd clearly be no problem with a List of female heads of state (oh look, there it is!), which is a post in many countries not handed out on the basis of gender. They're notable not just because they're heads of state, but because they're female heads of state. There's no sense in which race or religion is less notable than gender, so unless your argument is that "inventor" isn't specific enough (it's fine, we have an article on it) there can be no argument that this list falls outside of the lists allowed by WP:SALAT. It needs to be trimmed to being a list of people notable for being Jewish and for being inventors, but AfD is not for cleanup. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You do realize you're calling me out for "running out of arguments" while your argument in the previous comment was "I don't like mass AfDs." Right? These people are not notable for being Jewish inventors in any way shape or form and -- though I haven't checked thoroughly -- I'm fairly certain none of this people are famous for being Jewish either. Your female heads of state argument only supports deletion. Bulldog123 16:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well said. Agree w/Dust.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No particular reason for existence, no correlation between (most of) these inventions and Jewishness. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable intersection. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable intersection. No correlation between inventions and ethnicity. Yworo (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Dust. Needs clean-up, but that's not a reason to AfD an article.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find this article interesting and informative and can see no justification for its deletion. JackJud (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Worth noting that JackJud seems to only emerge from hibernation when a Jewish-themed topic arrives on CfD or Afd. — JackJud (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bulldog123 17:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's not clear how 'inventor' is defined or, indeed, how 'Jewish' is to be defined. Either way, it is an irrelevent intersection.--Korruski^Talk 15:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes, it is an "intersection," but it is a meaningful intersection in both an objective and a subjective way. While it is true that there is a grey area that can be identified in defining both "Jewish" and "inventors" there is also an innate public interest in both topics and consequently the intersection of the two topics. Defining the designation of Jewish and inventor would represent an improvement in the article. But failure to refine these definitions would not constitute a good enough reason for deletion. The article is not bad in its present state. It is a repository for a potentially useful tool for research. I think it also makes good general reading. Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• but it is a meaningful intersection in both an objective and a subjective way Um... how? Bulldog123 16:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is meaningful. However, let's get back to definitions and define inventor. It's a very shaky area. We may agree that John von Neumann and Leó Szilárd are first and foremost scientists rather than inventors, but this dichotomy of science and engineering is debatable, and then Szilard is in the National Inventors Hall of Fame. FWIW. Never mind, List of Russian inventors is even worse. East of Borschov 17:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Russian inventors is a sub-division of a nationality list... which includes many individuals who are not ethnically Russian... and makes no attempt to suggest that being Russian and being an inventor is linked. This list is a purely ethnicity list (and in some ways - a religious list) and because of it's very existence... DOES suggest being Jewish and being an inventor is linked. My question is... how?. Bulldog123 17:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep same as Epeefleche. Broccoli (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment--Jews as an ethnicity and nation. The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.^[1][2][3]

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.

--Epeefleche (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: WP:ListPeople; application to nationality/ethnicity. As WP:LISTPEOPLE indicates with regard to "nationality/ethnicity" -- "List of Albanians includes persons who are famous in any category and who belong to Albania. The criteria for identifying as an Albanian does not solely depend upon the official citizenship laws of that country – a person could be related to the place by birth, residency, parentage, or by his or her personal admission, considers himself or herself to be an Albanian at heart."--Epeefleche (talk)

• Comment - It seems to me that it is precisely because of the complicated nature of Jewishness that this list is so difficult. Do all inventors with Jewish mothers consider themselves to be 'Jewish Inventors'? It seems unlikely and, if they don't, then it is hard to see the point of including them in the list. Equally, some inventors may have converted to Judaism, but not have any ethnic connection. Are they 'Jewish Inventors'? Does it matter? I won't argue with you that the nature of being Jewish is a particularly interesting question, but that does not have any bearing on whether or not this list should be kept.--Korruski^Talk 18:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We generally reflect people as part of a cat or list if they were at some point in time a member of it. Even if they reject it at a later point, as Bobby Fischer rejected the U.S. Other lists pose the same issues, as in List of Palestinians and List of Palestinian-Americans on the one hand, and List of Muslim scientists, List of Muslim writers and poets, List of Muslim actors, List of Muslim mathematicians, List of American Muslims, List of Arab Americans, List of Arab Canadians, List of Iranian Arabs, List of Arab American writers, and List of Arab scientists and scholars on the other hand, but at this point I see that as an issue for the list but not for AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are equivalent for precisely the reasons you have explained in your post above.--Korruski^Talk 21:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are similarities and differences. People might well say that the Arabs are an ethnicity but not a nation, and the Muslims are a religion and not a nation, and the Palestinians are a people but not a religion. The Jews are all three. Hence, the similarities and the differences. But those are issues for the list construct, and not for AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^spout 19:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR, criteria #6, which states that: "Wikipedia articles are not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." This article is an almost exact fit for "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y", where religious group X = Jews and organization Y = inventors. SnottyWong ^spout 19:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As DGG pointed out today in reply to your parallel comment elsewhere, "as usual, if they have a Wikipedia article, including them isn't a violation of NOT DIR. A violation would be including every such actor, whether or not notable."--Epeefleche (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, many don't care one whit for DGG's err-on-the-side-of-inclusion point of view and odd interpretations of notability guidelines. I surely do not. Don't cite other user's opinions as if they have greater weight than any of our own, please. Tarc (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem about inclusion is choosing which people to write Wikipedia articles about in the first place. Lists are devices for navigation and browsing and nothing more. Whatever articles we do or do not have, we should provide good access to them. I have the same opinion about lists in those fields where I think we should have more stringent notability guidelines--if the consensus is to have them, they need to be properly indexed. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per established precedents for such lists of notable individuals, as clarified in WP:SAL, WP:LSC, WP:LISTNAME, WP:SALAT, and WP:LISTPEOPLE, this list is specifically per applicable policies and guidelines and serves the project and its readers. As these inventors already have sourced Wikipedia articles (well, all but one), including them in a list with defined parameters is not a violation of WP:NOTDIR, finding reasons to not like the list notwithstanding. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN There's reasonable evidence to suggest that User:Epeefleche is participating in an email-based WP:CANVASSing campaign, targeting users likely to !vote keep on this AfD (and other recent Jewish AfDs). See the following for evidence: [1] Note that User:Epeefleche has a long history of WP:CANVASSing keep-friendly individuals to participate in Jews CfDs/AfDs. Here are diffs from one of Epee's canvassing campaigns a few years ago: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. He now chooses to do this more surreptitiously by email. 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]

• No... not reasonable, and wrong forum. As anyone is allowed to edit, might it not be better to take a suspicion based upon one recent edit and then activity from "some years ago" to a different forum, and not use it here in an attempt to negatively color a discussion among many editors? I suggest this off-topic comment be moved to the talk page until such time as Bulldog123 wishes to file a formal request at the proper venue... specially as I have seen it repeated at all the Jewish-related AFDs where you and he have disagreed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have been contacted at my talk page to participate in similar AfDs, but Epeefleche is well aware that I do not support his viewpoint on this, so you should consider the possibility that he is approaching both sides equally and, therefore, not breaching any guidelines.--Korruski^Talk 08:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Epeefleche contacted me also as a result of my participation in the Nobel laureates AfD though I hold the opposite viewpoint. In this case I believe their actions were neutral in nature. Resolute 14:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You're both being fooled by Epee's third-grade tactics. For every 1 delete !voter Epee contacts, he contacts 10 !keep - usually under the guise of neutrality - and he's been doing this on Jewish AfDs for 3 years. I already collected the diffs for Category:Jewish figure skaters. Do I seriously need to go back further and show you the countless times Epee has instigated WP:CANVASSing campaigns? This user has a history of disruption. WP:AGF is out the window. Bulldog123 02:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would appreciate it if Bull were to delete his mis-truths and incivility from his prior entry, and elsewhere in this AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So... you're saying you didn't canvass individuals with leading sentences like "Well, they are trying to delete a subcategory of Jewish athletes again" in the Category:Jewish figure skaters CfD a few years back? Bulldog123 05:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any need to discuss emails from nearly four years ago. On the other hand, my request relates to your untruths on this page this week (though fixing your untruths elsewhere would also be appreciated).--Epeefleche (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I do see the need, because it's evidence that you have yet to learn that canvassing inclusionists to come "save" a list is not the same thing as a "neutral" notification. Before your 65-edit spree, you directly contacted User:DGG to participate in the Jewish lists. Anybody with eyes can see DGG's own personal view on lists makes him an inclusionist. Bulldog123 03:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Edits from nearly four years ago are not evidence of anything relative to this AfD. But this week you have made mis-statements at this AfD and elsewhere. Please correct them, as I've requested above. As to DGG, I think he ably responded to your charge on his talkpage and at the AfDs already, so you can stop repeating yourself, since I assume that your goal is not to be disruptive by repeating yourself.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: - Epeefleche actually notified 65 editors on their talk pages about all of these jewish-list-related AfD's. I have posted a notice on his talk page asking for an explanation. This AfD is hopelessly tainted (as are all of the other ones), and should be automatically relisted at a later date in the hopes that an unbiased consensus can be determined. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 18:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A neutral notification sent out for balance only after the notice and accusation by Bulldog123 had been placed in all those same related discussions... and only to those who had already opined in other related "List of Jewish" discussions. It is clear that the neutral notification was not "targeted" to any one mindset nor was it accusatory or inflamatory, but was sent to editors equally, no matter their likelyness to !vote delete or keep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's interesting how you use the word "accusation" - as that term heavily implies that my assessment may not be right. The simple fact of the matter is - Epeefleche has been CANVASSING !keep-prone individuals to Jewish AfDs/CfDs for years. There is no longer a need to WP:AGF. Just because Epee happens to be on your side in this matter, doesn't mean you should be blindly protecting him. Bulldog123 02:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, religion does not have an impact on someone being an inventor. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "list of inventors" has a poorly defined scope, and adding a poorly-defined ethnicity in front of that only makes it worse. Nergaal (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Same old policy/guideline violations (WP:BLP, WP:EGRS, & WP:Stand-alone_lists) This one however, is especially problematic (this goes to all other "List of X inventors") because it is difficult to define the difference between an invention and an improvement. Also, as is common in history, several things may have been invented almost simultaneously (ex. radio).--Therexbanner (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "inventor" is too ill-defined a term (many people may be involved in an invention at one time or another - cf Newton's Standing On The Shoulders of Giants), as is "invention" itself. And that's not even getting into the definition/BLPCAT issues with "Jewish". Rd232 ^talk 11:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable intersection. Also agree with Tarc about deleting trivial vanity lists in general.Griswaldo (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia should not be placing people into subjective and potentially contentious ethnic or religious categories, particularly when those categories are not relavent to the subject's notability. Doing so is against the spirit of WP:BLPCAT. NickCT (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is no indication that being Jewish and being an inventor constitutes a notable intersection. As such, it is a subjective list that pushes a POV not supported by sources. Resolute 14:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Another interesting and informative list. Davshul (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:INTERESTING, this is the sort of opinion that is weighted very little in the final analysis, if not discarded altogether. Tarc (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Jayjg, Yworo, et al. --JN466 23:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not a terribly well-defined or meaningful categorization. I don't think invention or inventorship are particularly connected to Jewishness - though I could be wrong. It would need some sourcing. However, it would be best to ignore votes that are simply objections to noting Jewishness, as that's a value judgment rather than an encyclopedic one. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - No notability established or asserted for being an inventor and being Jewish, sorry. Tarc (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User Jayjg (talk · contribs), also please note WP:LISTCRUFT. IZAK (talk) 10:11, 5 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.