Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors (2nd nomination)

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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish actors

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

A rather WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that could never possibly be complete. Just because someone identifies as Jewish doesn't mean it has to be tracked into one article. Much of it is rather poorly sourced, and a page of this nature is prone to WP:BLP and WP:OR violations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 03:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not for cleanup. Remove the non-sourced additions and request page protection if things get out of line. The list has a clearly defined inclusion criteria on a notable topic. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the Actor and Judaism projects Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the worst AfDs of the year, especially from an editor who is not a newbie. As Lugnuts states, AfD is not for clean-up. In addition, the fact that a list is not complete is never reason to AfD a list. The same is true of a very high percentage of our lists. The fact that "it does not have to be tracked" is inane -- again, the same could be said of all of our lists. Assertion that a page is prone to WP:BLP and WP:OR violations is also odd and an argument to avoid -- by that measure, we would delete our articles on Obama and Hitler and Madonna. Awful nomination -- full of arguments one should not make at AfD. I see that only 3 of nom's 24 AfD nominations to date have resulted in "delete" closes; perhaps he should take his foot off the pedal and watch and participate in and learn from the AfD process before nominating more articles. Epeefleche (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Lugnuts. Fully sourced and clearly defined. Yoninah (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other topics are irrelevant to this one per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Comments towards nominate are also an argument to avoid per WP:ATTP. One sentence at the beginning of an article doesn't really by itself indicate how it meets WP:SAL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Appears to be a suitable encyclopedic topic as the combination of Jewish and Theater has been subject of numerous scholarly articles and books (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc.) Demand for proper references and compliance with BLP and OR for any particular entry is an absolute requirement -- but none of these are valid arguments for deletion of the entire page. I agree that the lead section should be expanded to more clearly define inclusion criteria and the topic (per WP:SAL). — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above - Most if not ALL articles are linked, Most backed by sources, Personally I see no reason to delete. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an encyclopedic topic covered by hundreds of books that cover this intersection of religion / ethnicity and profession, and User:CactusWriter provides just a sampling. The list is well-organized, the articles exist and there are more than 650 references in the article. This should probably never have been nominated, but that's AfD for you. Alansohn (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTSOFSOURCES isn't a very convincing argument, especially when much of an article's content is poorly sourced. I could imagine having an article with specific criteria, such as "List of richest American Jewish actors" or "List of Canadian Jewish actors", but simply "List of Jewish actors" is too broad to have its own list. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS -- please read the (so far unanimous) disagreement with you of the seven editors who have posted so far, and take it to heart. Please also take to heart that you're (continued) argument that what you view as "poor sourcing" (others disagree) is not reason to delete an article on a notable subject -- you still seem not to understand this. And please understand that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone ... list." That's the essence of GNG -- significant coverage is indeed key. And please understand that there are far longer lists -- your assertion that the size here is an issue is misplaced; if the list were ever to exceed long list size, it could be split into two lists. But in short, please respect consensus when it comes to AfDing articles, and understand from this and your other AfD nominations where your views are non-consensus ones. Epeefleche (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject of Jewish actors, as a class, is clearly a notable one under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, and most entries on this list seems to be properly sourced. There may be better ways of organizing long lists such as this, but that is a discussion for the article talk page not AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2014 (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.