Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 6

List of Jewish actors (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The majority of the argument for closing as a delete was lack of notability, had the closer investigated the sources provided by those requesting a keep deeper I feel that grounds for notability would have been established. In the closing statement the closer dismisses sources such as The Jew in American Cinema and Acting Jewish: Negotiating Ethnicity on the American Stage and Screen as being about Jewish characters and productions , however both sources go on at length about the persecution of Jewish Actors in the early part of the 20th century (both in totalitarian regimes across Eurasia and in Hollywood as well)- why some Jewish Actors were forced to change names and even resorted to Plastic Surgery to hide their Jewishness , and why those actors who opted to remain in Jewish Roles developed the stereotypical "Jewish Character" to promote their Jewishness. In the late 1940s and early 1950s this turned nasty with the "Outing" of several Jewish Actors (pg 40 Acting Jewish). Whilst during the later part of the 20th century, ethnicity and particularly Jewish culture became a thing of pride, it also became a time when Method acting came up with a formula for non-Jewish actors to play stereotypical Jewish; as a result Jewish Actors moved away from playing stereotypical Jewish characters and a much broader range of Jewish culture was exemplified by Jewish Actors whilst Non-Jews tended to play closer to the stereotype (or Jews played as non-jews). A lot of these (and other sources) confirm the assertion that "The majority of people on the list have made some attempt to connect with Jewish Culture by playing Jewish roles." but this could be widened; that "the majority have acted in roles associated with Jewishness or significant Jewish history and/or culture." The article Secular Jewish culture acts as a head article for this, though it is in need of expansion in the Film section, though there is enough material and sources that a spinout into Secular Jewish acting could be considered. The list can be considered a list of notable proponents. I would also challenge the assertion by the closer that The large number of references to the article demonstrating notability "was pointed out to be misleading because the sources merely confirm the Judaism of individual entrants on the list; they do not cover the actual intersection between Judaism and acting" a number of the links already assert or question how the Actor's Jewishness has a notable effect on roles they have portrayed. I did suggest in the AFD that this should be held to a higher inclusion criteria limiting sources to those that show the person is notable for being a "Jewish Actor" but this does not seem to have been considered in the close. The existence of this notability already establishes that WP:NOTDIR does not apply because it is a Culturally Significant Phenomenon so whilst it was not specifically addressed by those asking for a keep we felt we were addressing it in our notability sourcing. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I rarely participate in deletion reviews so I'm not sure of the form. I think that relevant arguments and sources weren't raised at this AfD, which may have resulted in a Keep if raised, but on the basis of the arguments that were actually made the result of Delete was the appropriate decision by the closing admin. How does that translate here? Is deletion review concerned with process, or result? - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• These sources were raised on the above basis (with less detail) but they weren't challenged when I raised them, and I missed them when Wikidemon and Colonel Warden re-raised them and Bulldog made the claim that they were only about characters and not about the actors. Had I been aware I would have challenged that claim as I did above, however I was not aware until the close was made. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• They were... for the most part... only about characters and "cinema." Anyone can skim the books content and see for themselves. Bulldog123 00:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For the most part does not mean completely and your skimming clearly missed the relevant sections. Pages 36 to 40 of Acting Jewish cover explicitly the notability of Jewish actors playing Jewish roles as well as the hurdles faced by these actors in the early part of the 20th century. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if you're intentionally being misleading or if I'm looking at the wrong book here, but... I just looked at Pages 36-40 here, and all I can find is a lengthy discussion about the characters of Green and Goldberg in the film Gentleman's Agreement. Page 39 then - in one brief paragraph - mentions how several Jewish actors changed their names to hide from Jewish-sounding surnames to more neutral ones. Please explain to me what that has to do with List of Jewish actors and and all the different individuals listed there? Bulldog123 06:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The I suggest you go back and look at it again, although that chapter is substantially about the characters in gentleman's agreement, from page 36 onwards it becomes notably about the actor John Garfield the persecution he suffered as a Jewish Actor, how his Jewish upbringing resonated in the role of Goldman (it's notable there is no character of Goldberg so clearly you did not read it that deeply) it then covers more generally the persecution of Jewish actors on pages 39 and 40. Other chapters also document the notability of Jewishness of actors in different time frames highlighting even the notability of Allen and Streisand as Jewish actors in the 1970s and so on. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fresh. Instead of merely correcting me and saying, "His name was Goldman, not Goldberg" (a simple mix-up I made because there's a chapter entitled "The Goldbergs" on Page 40), you use it as evidence to suggest "I didn't read it carefully." It's the type of non sequitur we'd use in grade school debate class. Now, if you want list of Jewish actors to include John Garfield because of that one source, and to include Barbara Streisand because of Yentl (film) and that source... that's great. However, that's certainly not the list you're asking to be returned. There's nothing preventing you from starting Judaism in cinema and including a list of those people in that article based on those sources. That's totally fine and I don't think anybody would object to that. However... using it all as an excuse to bring back the "hundreds" of people who have no relationship to anything you are presenting makes no sense whatsoever. If you're saying, "It's a notable intersection... but only for a specific group of actors, and only based on this and this and this"... Fine. You don't need this giant list of questionably-sourced "irrelevantly-intersected" individuals for that. Bulldog123 05:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, you're just proving how your representation differs from presented facts. I never said you "didn't read it carefully." Is said "Deeply" and this mirrors your previous statement "Anyone can skim the books content" Skimming is not reading deeply. I note that DustforWords is having the same problem with your re-imagining of sources in a current AfD. The source uses case studies to cover the subjects of both Jewish Actors and Jewish characterisation. John Garfield is a case study but the source gives clear indication that his challenges applied to a majority of Jewish actors at the time - BTW the source covers the Streisand as part of how Jewish Actors were able to portray Jewish culture in a more even and less stereotypical way and covers her performance in "The way we were" to show that not "Yentl". You seem to keep limiting sources to Cinema or theatre to distract from the fact that a notale intersection occurs on all forms of Acting, Theatre, Cinema, and Television. Again as I've said before the list needs a significant clean with up to 50% of entries cleared out and only re-added once they have a higher quality source that ideally would identify the notability of their Jewishness in regard to their acting - which doesn't have to mean a Jewish Role or Jewish Production - Dianna Agron was sourced with a document that asserted how her Jewish upbringing was notable in her playing a WASP in Glee - The same source also covered the notability of the also Jewish Lea Michele playing a Jewish Character in the same series. Requiring a clean out and a higher quality of sourcing is preferable to losing the article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I say "skim" because I'm not going to say "deeply read" when there's a limitation on Google books. If you're trying to tell me that you went to the local library (or bought the book from a store) and read it all within the time of this DR... I'm sorry, I don't believe you. In the related AfD, DustformsWords didn't even read the brief BBC article he linked to. I highly doubt he went to the library and read the entirety of the books he linked to. So that remark you made about the other AfD was just another passive credibility attack - not even an accurate one. However, from what I have read in the book, I can say you are grossly exaggerating the amount of words spent on the connection between Jewish actors and Jewish characterizations. Regarding your other points, I responded to them under your most recent comment below. Bulldog123 15:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the difficulty I faced - the keep side did themselves no favours in this debate (completely failing to analyse the sources) but it wasn't my job to help them. However I think DRV should be more focused on outcomes and less on process, so if it's the view here that the AfD came to the "wrong" result even if I interpreted the debate correctly (eg because the keep side just didn't address the points they needed to), we should think about overturning the close. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• To answer the "Is deletion review concerned with process, or result?" primarily it's if the process was followed correctly. If the reasons for deletion were overcome then anyone is free to recreate the article at any time without DRVs approval, so no need to review. In some instances where significant' new information that wasn't bought up at xFD in which case DRV can look at it to see if restoration or reslisting maybe warranted, but it would have to be significant and not just an extension or continuation of the xFD line of discussion. Realisitically what DRV is trying to do is avoid being a "superior court" substituing the DRV participants viewpoint as somehow better than that of those at xFD. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Think it's worth noting that one of your comments in the AFD was: "Not all Jewish Actors are notable for being Jewish Actors, however those that are should be listed." How exactly do you suggest we implement this? Bulldog123 11:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this were to be implemented, it would be implemented by Better sourcing, I even advocated a 50-75% clear out of the list and repopulation only on the basis that better sources considering the individual's notability as a Jewish Actor was established. Generally reliable news sources do not lightly label an actor as Jewish unless it is notable to their performance, or they are notably Jewish for other reasons. Less reliable sources such as Jweekly need to be weighed up on their individual merits, asking the question "Do they establish that the individual is notable as a Jewish Actor, or are they simply applying a label of Jewishness that may be at best tenuous?" For older actors the sourcing is far easier as they are more likely to have established their Jewishness as notable. Of ocurse this should be established in the lead as clear inclusion criteria. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So... Lea Michelle's father was a Sephardic Jew and because she plays a Jew (probably not even Sephardic) on Glee... that makes her Judaism notable. Is this what you're implying is a valid piece of information connecting the actresses's Jewish heritage with her acting career? Do you consider that alone enough to add her to your re-vamped list? Bulldog123 15:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close. Everything the RFD nominator mentioned (the discrimination, the success, etc.) may belong in a prose article called something like "History of Jews in Acting". I tried really hard, but I just cannot see how a List of Jewish (and half-Jewish, and quarter-Jewish) actors has anything to do with what was just said. The list contained names, and dates of birth, and nothing else. Also, some of the people on there aren't even real actors (like Bar Refaeli, and Esti Ginzburg are mainly models). I also fail to see how the story of American Jewish actors has anything to do with actors from other countries (many of whom have never even been to the US.) If you want to write something about the "Jewish characters/stereotypes", or what Jewish actors have been through, go ahead, but the list has absolutely no relation to those issues. Which is why I voted delete in the first place.--Therexbanner (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit like asking "what does a list of Elvis Presley songs have to do with a biography of his life?" the list contains the proponents of a notable intersection, yes we should have an article covering that notable intersection and in a way we do under Secular Jewish culture however there could a specific article under Secular Jewish acting. It doesn't change the fact that these proponents exist and have their own stories that may be relevant to the larger notable intersection but not within the scope an article on the intersection. Having a list tied into such an article allows readers to explore those individual stories. On some of the other points I agree, but they were not justification for deletion of the list, for instance: Bar Refaeli, and Esti Ginzburg may need to be removed as should the likes of Paula Abdul and possibly Eddie Fisher who were notable singers but not significantly notable for their acting. If reliable sources are identifying Quarter and Half Jewish people as notably Jewish actors then I don't have any concerns about the fact that other editors may consider them Quarter or Half only that reliable sources assert that they are. As I said to all hallows wraith, I am not concerned with Jewish Characters and we already have a list of them. I am concerned with listing Actors who are notable for being Jewish because I believe that that is a notable intersection confirmed by reliable sources. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart, do you support List of left-handed actors given the wealth of material suggesting it is a "notable intersection:" [1]. And don't say "This is not about left-handed actors. This is about Jewish actors." If your view cannot be applied to all such lists, regardless of their content, it's not a view that's going to mesh well with Wikipedia's policy. Bulldog123 02:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm vacillating about whether it's a good idea to pigeonhole people by ethnicity on Wikipedia. Up until yesterday I was pretty anti, but DustFormsWords is in the process of persuading me round for some cases. We have a Category:Jewish actors, so per WP:CLN we could have a list. Alternatively, if this list is kept deleted at DRV, then we need to raise a CfD for Category:Jewish actors.—S Marshall T/C 13:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category is flagrant WP:OCAT anyway (by both religion and ethnicity). It should have been nominated to begin with. Bulldog123 11:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as the deletion arguments were in no way stronger, and because this result is contrary to the broader consensus on such lists. Unless, that is, we're going to completely delete Lists of Jews and all of its other sublists. That's where the comments about the difficulty of defining who is a Jew aim; such complaints are in no way specific to this list and so long as we have any lists of Jews the difficulty with defining who is or isn't should not be applied to one sublist out of context. And that's a better argument for deleting a category, given that a list can provide sourcing and explanation for each entry to justify its inclusion. This capability of lists obviates any need for alarm from the fact that there may be varying inclusion criteria. On the issue of whether it's a non-notable intersection (many sources say not) is really irrelevant as long as it's a sensible way to index articles, and splitting the lists of Jews by occupation is a sensible way to divide the topic. Requiring the intersection to be significant for most or all members is a proper standard for categories, not lists, and I see no reason to expand that to lists, which aim to be comprehensive indexes of articles. And claiming this is a WP:NOTDIR "violation" (really the last resort for those who want to delete a list but can't come up with a more specific, better reason) as an unencyclopedic cross-categorization is a stretch; comparing this to [ethnic group] employed by [organization], the generic example of a bad list, is a really poor analogy because that third step of who employed them as actors is not included. Simply asserting that opinion certainly does not counter the general utility of dividing an index of people by occupation. It's simply a proper and reasonable sublist. Many of the deletion votes in fact seem to implicitly recognize that it's encyclopedic, such as one commenter saying it would make a better category than list because of its breadth, and another similarly saying it would make more sense if it were narrower, such as Jewish American actors; both such comments point towards making sublists of this list by country as a way to improve it, rather than offering any basis for deletion.

  If, instead, the end result should be that no lists of people by ethnicity are kept on Wikipedia, then that should occur following a larger discussion rather than a haphazard targeting. I simply see no valid reason offered to delete this list but not all such lists. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see your point, but I am sure you know that just because there are many other problematic articles/lists, it does not mean that this one should be kept (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Especially, since you acknowledge that there are issues with other similar lists. If you see a similar problem with other articles/lists, by all means put them up for deletion, and I will support it (if they suffer from the same problems.)
  • In relation to sourcing, many similar lists base their membership information on objective factors, such as citizenship. For example, "List of French Scientists" contains all people who were born in France, or who hold/held French citizenship (regardless of their religion/ethnicity). The main problems are caused by ethnic/religious lists where inclusion criteria is disputed, and the notability of intersection is not established. In fact, there are not that many Lists of Notable X, that are not based on citizenhip/place of birth. As it seems you would be okay with deleting all other problematic lists, I would like to know how would you go about doing that? --Therexbanner (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it doesn't seem like I would be okay with that. If you thought I was agreeing that this list was problematic, you've mistaken me for someone else, and you'll have to ask them why they think all lists of people by ethnicity should be deleted and how they should go about doing that. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, but when I read: "If, instead, the end result should be that no lists of people by ethnicity are kept on Wikipedia, then that should occur following a larger discussion rather than a haphazard targeting. I simply see no valid reason offered to delete this list but not all such lists." I came to that conclusion. I now see that I was mistaken. On a side note, why would you think I was referring to someone else, when I was clearly replying to you?--Therexbanner (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, weakly Upon examining the AfD, I think that the delete opinions were stronger in their basis. I don't really have the heart to explain more because my head hurts every time I try to read the discussion again, but I don't really think there was a strong consensus. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The closing admin gave a very clear rationale for their analysis of the consensus. The same sources that Stuart.Jamieson brings up here were discussed at the AfD and were found to not satisfactorily show that the intersection of being an actor while simultaneously being a Jew was notable or significant. Attempting to discuss the same sources at DRV is only an attempt to continue the AfD at DRV, which is not what DRV is for. SnottyWong ^speak 19:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually reread the AFD and the Closing Admin's statement above. In the Afd you will find that Bulldog made the dismiss on two occasions neither time did he qualify it. In the closing Admin's statement above he is clear that I made no analysis of the sources identifying the relevant sections which underlined the notable intersection - This is true as I did not see Bulldog's dismiss at the time and did not realise that further analysis was required. If you wish further new sources, consider the following:

• America on film: representing race, class, gender, and sexuality at the movies By Harry M. Benshoff, Sean Griffin - Covers how early Jewish Actors such as Al Jolson and Eddie Cantor found it more acceptable to act in blackface than be accepted in a white non Jewish role, also covers the Antisemitism against Jewish Actors up until the 1950s and the re-emergence of the Jewish character as played by Jewish actors from the late 1960's onward.
• Acting: an International encyclopedia By Beth Osnes - Covers Hitler's Expulsion of all Jewish Actors from German theatres in 1933 followed by legislation allowing Jewish Actors to only perform in Jewish written plays for Jewish Patrons.
• Jewish identities in German popular entertainment, 1890-1933 By Marline Otte - Covers Jewish Actors attempts to shed the stereotype of the Jewish character in German theatre at that time.
• Jewish Culture and Identity in the Soviet Union By Yaacov Ro'i, Avi Beker - Covers the persecution of Jewish actors including execution and exile. Plus the restoration of the remaining actors shortly before the fall of communism.

You can also throw in sections of

• Between two worlds: the Jewish presence in German and Austrian film, 1910-1933 By S. S. Prawer
• Theatre in the Third Reich, the prewar years: essays on theatre in Nazi Germany By Glen W. Gadberry

And there are lots more on the subject. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A great argument for an artcle but not for this list. Yworo (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a great argument for a article, then WP:N for that article means it's anotable intersection then, thanks for stating that since it wasn't proven when the AFD was closed. As I've said previously, some of this is already covered under Secular Jewish culture and an article with a list of proponents is accepted WP policy, there is a question of whether that article should be expanded in relation to acting or whether the acting elements could or should be spun off into another article linked to this list but that's another debate not for here. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I did not participate in the AfD, nor had I read it until now. In reviewing the arguments presented, it is clear to me that the fact that there were so many sources to verify the ethnicity of the people on the list was a clear indication of the notability of the intersection itself. If the intersection were not notable, as it is with most actors, there wouldn't be sources saying "this actor is Jewish" from which to build an article at all. The NOTDIR arguments should have been discounted in their entirety (as a non-admin without access to the list in question) per arguments stating that only actors with established notability with existing WP articles were included. If every entry on the list is notable with an article, NOTDIR does not apply, and is not a valid argument for deletion. Argumrnts attempting to impose BLPCAT on a list are also clearly non-arguments. BLPCAT applies only to living people, and only to categories which have no ability for citations and referencing. Categories are appropriately held to a higher standard. Arguments that the list was unmanagable also have no basis in policy. Deletion is not an alternative to editing. With so many of the delete arguments clearly falling outside of policy, had they been appropriately weighted, this should have been a Keep, or at best, a No Consensus close. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Having now reviewed the list itself, there was exactly one listing of a non-notable on it at the time of deletion. As such, any NOTDIR argument should have been counted as no argument at all, and appropriately ignored. Thanks to Mkativerata for the restore for the review. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Re NOTDIR: the NOTDIR delete !votes explicitly pointed to #6, which is about non-encyclopaedic intersections rather than lists of non-notable subjects. Just to be clear - it was for that reason that the NOTDIR arguments were given some weight. To illustrate, List of European Parliament members who wear contact lenses would be full of bluelinks but hopelessly fail NOTDIR. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless, of course, there were multiple, reliable sources with significant coverage of members of parliament who wear contacts. Afterall, notable is the inclusion criteria. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay. Here is a plethora of reliable source coverage on left-handed actors: Left-Handed History by Ed Wright, The Expressive Body: Physical Characterization of the Actor by David Alberts, Celebrated Left-Handers by Leigh W. Rutledge, Famous Left-Handed Actors, Being Left-Handed. We're good for List of left-handed actors, right? If not. Why not? Bulldog123 02:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In theory, if those were better sources you'd found, yes, start the list. However, BeingLeftHanded.com offers neither significant discussion nor a reliable source. "NALHP.org" is an expired domain with no content. "Celebrated Left Handers" does not contain the phrase "left-handed actor". "The Expressive Body" contains only a one-sentence mention of "left-handed actor" and is therefore not significant discussion. And "Left-Handed History" only provides a list of left-handed actors in 8 point font without discussing them in any way. So yes, theoretically, if you found significant discussion in reliable independent sources, you could start the list. This isn't it, is all. But you have convinced me that such coverage MIGHT exist. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the argument then that Lists of Jews should instead just be List of Jews, without any subdivision into sublists by occupation? I didn't see anyone who shouted "WP:NOTDIR!" arguing that clearly, or showing that they understood the consequences of that. Or is the argument that there should be neither Lists of Jews or List of Jews? If that's the case, then how such lists are subdivided is really beside the point, and the arguments need to focus on why lists of people by ethnicity in the first place are unencyclopedic. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Closing admin did a good job of summarizing the many arguments and evaluated them properly. Yworo (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've restored the article so that non-admins can see it. My apologies to wikipedia's servers. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Because the closer says they will avoid process in favor of substance, I won't go into detail about the outcome being contrary to consensus. I do note that a number of sources were provided. Normally it is enough to point to a few reliable sources on the topic at hand, say they establish notability, and let people figure it out from there. I'm not used to being asked to prove that entire scholarly books on a well-known subject establish that the subject is worth noting. Yes, there are a number of books, lectures, museum exhibits, websites, documentaries, you name it, on the subject of Jews in the profession of acting. It is getting tedious to have to defend the legitimacy of Jewish identity at every turn, but give us a few days and I'm sure we can turn up some specific examples and read them aloud here. Pointing to sources should be enough. Do we really have to justify why serious people would choose to write about the subject too? Jewish secular culture, like any other ethnicity, carries a history to it, some shared values and experiences. The sources can probably explain it better than I, but as a marginalized minority culture nearly everywhere it landed, with a storytelling tradition in both literary and oral forms, Jews throughout history have turned to plays, shows, theater as a means of expression. This landed in America, where a complex interplay of immigrant culture, economic ambition and entrepreneurship, the rise of the film and television industries, and lots of other things mixed together to produce significant groups of Jewish-American actors. They even had a union, with a similar union in Europe. Though these were for Hebrew and Yiddish productions, the transition from Yiddish theater to mainstream culture -- from Borscht Belt to Vaudeville to Broadway -- is a major part of the story). Every actor has a different life path, and the many strains of secular Jewishness have played out differently in different times, nations, and occupations. And there are hundreds of ethnicities and other ways to group people in the world. A few are notable, most are not. Acting and other forms of entertainment is one of the significant places where Jewishness resonated across time and place, and we have plenty of sources on which to build list and prose articles about that. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question. How does this list deal with Jewish influence on actors and cinema in America and the world? You keep mentioning that Jews are important to Hollywood and acting in general. OK, make an article that deals with that issue. You can even add some example names, but there's no reason to list every single person (the list would never be exhaustive anyways).

I still do not see how a simple list of names and birthdates explains Jewish (or any other ethnic/religious) impact on anything. Write a normal (prose) article on the subject. What the list is now is a catalogue of Jewish actors and their dates of birth, with huge variance in notability.

For example, after reading the list, the reader will know that Natalie Portman (born in the 1980s), and Jeffrey Tambor (born in the 1930s) are Jewish. Ok, so what? Tons of other nationalities (Irish, Italian, English, Scottish, German, Russian, Chinese, etc.) have made a very significant impact on acting too, and can have similar lists. But why? What would those dull lists tell me and other readers about the history and impact of those cultures? That they have made an influence (which would depend on the actor/actress)? Well, welcome to the club, many other groups have too.--Therexbanner (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, Therexbanner hits the nail on the head. I have to stress again though. Deletion Review does not exist as "AfD part 2." There is not need to even reply to messages like this. Bulldog123 00:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may stress what you want, but this deletion review is a reexamination of whether the article should be deleted given the notability of the subject. So said Mkativerata above at 10:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC). If this were purely a procedural matter then it's a bad close. The closer substituted their own analysis of the topic for that of the community's, which was leaning in favor of keeping based on the sources provided. They glanced at the sources offered (but did not read in sufficient depth), declared them unconvincing, then made a decision to discard the community's opinion. As a practical matter, ignoring substance in favor of procedure would mean that anyone would be free to recreate the article with better sources - which they could and should given that the subject is notable - then we would have another AfD if anyone were so adamant about stamping this out. Going back to the substance, the list could indeed use significant improvement and change in focus, and I'm wondering if it might in fact be better to leave it deleted in favor of starting again from scratch. Of course there is a point in having a list article distinct from the subject article, for the same reason we have any list articles. But that's a different question and takes us beyond the scope of this page. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, deletion review is a time to review whether the procedure of an AfD was followed properly and if the close analysis of the discussion was accurate. It is not a time to rehash all the arguments of AfD. It is to analyze the close and determine whether it was made properly by the policies and guidelines of the Wiki. I would direct you to WP:DELREV Wolfstorm000 (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what deletion review is, and proclamation aside we are discussing the wisdom of the outcome. The closing administrator, after reaching a decision running against the majority of considered opinions, expressed some doubt at the outcome and says that further review would be helpful. That's a conscientious approach. This isn't a game of gotcha. As I said, if this were just about procedure the procedure failed because the close was based on the closing administrator's own analysis, not the reasoned opinions of the community. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, you're misrepresenting the actual AfD outcome. First of all the closure decision was not running against a "majority of considered opinions." [2] Subtract and replace some of the mis-reported !votes and you get just about 50/50. Sad fact of the matter is, the majority of !keep opinions were either WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or WP:N (except notability for the wrong article). Given the fact that this article was CANVASSed to 65 different individuals, and then surreptitiously CANVASSed to inclusionists by e-mail.... the fact that we still came out about 50/50 says a lot. Bulldog123 09:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please tone down a few notches here and try not to start throwing accusations . The keep opinions had a majority numerically both in an absolute sense, and after discounting all the invalid and off topic ones on both sides. That's including all the "per nom" and "me too" delete votes that didn't actually show whether the person had reasoned anything through. You don't get to throw out opinions just because you disagree with the conclusion, that's not what consensus is. Again, the closer substituted their own reasoning for that of the participants they disagreed with. That is not a proper close. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tone down what? You're making it seem like it was a vast majority when it wasn't. "Per nom" and "me too" was on both sides, and I don't consider those to be "throwaway" votes if the person they're "per-ing" has a legitimate position. Bulldog123 00:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Close Deletion Review is not for "re-discussing" the matter, but for determining whether the admin made a fair and balanced call in his closure. He did. Bulldog123 00:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly endorse close. The closing admin gave a well-reasoned explanation of his closure, which clearly took into account the arguments made on both sides. DRV is not "AfD, round 2"; we're not here to re-argue this AfD, as many editors here are doing. Also, I'm frankly baffled by Postdlf's argument, which, if followed, would make it impossible to delete any ethnicity-based list. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of arguing early and often, this is in fact AfD round 2. If not, then perhaps the closer should withdraw the offer to reconsider if the sourcing is improved or explained better, in which case their failure to acknowledge or understand the sourcing that was offered and accepted by the majority of participants in the AfD in the first place shows that it was a bad close. The finding of the close is that the intersection between Jewishness and acting is not notable, something that can easily be overcome with sources. We can figure that out now, or we can stick a fork in it now in favor of cooking a new article on the topic tomorrow... which I'm not sure is such a bad idea. One thing we do agree on is that the list in its old form was of poor quality, inadequately sourced, not organized well, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, DRV is not AfD round 2. It's just not. Second of all, what is the point in arguing to restore an article which you yourself admit was of poor quality, poorly sourced, and unorganized? This seems like a case of arguing for the sake of arguing. If I told you I had just written an article that was of poor quality, was inadequately sourced, and was hopelessly unorganized; would you argue endlessly to convince everyone to include this article on Wikipedia? SnottyWong ^confess 06:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is whether the subject is notable, as established by the sources. If not, there's no cause to overturn. If so, the closing administrator was wrong to substitute their own opinion on the subject when there was no consensus for that. You can call it round two if you want, but that's where we are in the discussion. The bad result may be useful in the way that a house burning down is useful so you can build a better one. Improvement is usually achieved around here through incremental edits to articles, not by nuking poor but notable content in hopes that someone cares enough about the subject to redo it. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the subject? According to the list, the subject should be "People with ethnic Jewish backgrounds and acting" (because that's the criteria for the list). Yet all the sources presented here seem to think the subject is Portrayal of Jews in cinema, movies about Judaism, and Yiddish theatre. Bulldog123 14:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is "Jewish actors", plain and simple, and the article is a list of them. The sources establish that the subject is notable. Portrayals of Jews by Jews, ethnic theater, and early American cinema are important subtopics in any prose counterpart, for historical reasons. So are the popular acceptance and professional opportunities of the actors as a group in various nations, assimilation and identity, and and some other things. The Who is a Jew? issue is a red herring here that does not relate to notability. It's up to those who edit that article space to decide whether and how to address that question, which runs through nearly any treatment of things Jewish. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources establish that the subject is notable.

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT much?

It's up to those who edit that article space to decide whether and how to address that question

Nope. That's OR. We are not here to make decisions like that - hence why we're called "editors" and not "creators." Over the years, it's been established that such a criteria is impossible to find. That alone is enough reason to get rid of this list, and was the main reason for its nomination. Bulldog123 21:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're flat wrong, for the fourth time or so please desist from the bombastic proclamations about other editors' abilities. You have no special entitlement to require other editors to agree with you, much less put them down when they don't. That's messing up the discussion here. Along with the majority of others, I find after review of the article and the sources that the subject of Jewish actors is a notable one. Thus, we weighed in that the article should not be deleted. I'm not going to engage you in a meta-argument about the meaning of Wikipedia policy because you have no business denigrating other editors' understanding of policy here. The notion that Jewishness should not be treated as an identity categorization because it is hard to define is offensive to some people, and they have said so here. We don't go around deleting articles about Jews or any other group simply because the inclusion criteria are complex. Wikidemon (talk) 00

27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

@Jayjg: I don't think any ethnicity-based list should be deleted for reasons that it is an ethnicity-based list, unless there is a broad, systemically-applied consensus that determines ethnicity-based lists should not exist, or at least that the particular ethnicity should not be documented in any lists. Probably an RFC would be the only way to accomplish that. In my view, it is irrational and unacceptably piecemeal to delete a single list of notable Jews subdivided by an occupation (a rather broad, encyclopedic one here) without that broader determination: that either Jews cannot be verifiably listed and so we should have no lists of Jews, or that people by ethnicity lists should not exist at all. "OTHERSTUFF!" is simply not an effective retort to that, because I'm not saying my buddy's band should have an article because U2 does. As OTHERSTUFF states, but everyone citing it here has ignored, "However such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an 'Other Stuff Exists' angle provides for consistency." To provide an analogy, it would be senseless to single out for deletion List of people from Orange County, California on the basis that people by state lists should not exist. All that would accomplish is poking a hole in the CA by county lists, and in the short term, may well result in the entries in that list dumped back in the overly long state list, just as deleting the list of Jewish actors or other lists like it would just result in incomplete indexing or an overly long list of Jews. postdlf (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This list wasn't "deleted for reasons that it is an ethnicity-based list", though. Rather, the list was deleted because the intersection of "Jewish" and a "List of actors" was not notable. Thus your "overturn" argument does not actually address the deletion decision. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my original overturn comment, which does directly address the issue of the intersection. postdlf (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It mostly states that one shouldn't delete ethnicity based lists. It does mention the issue of the intersection, but only to claim that the notability of the intersection is "irrelevant" for articles (vs. categories) - which is an incorrect understanding of WP:GNG, and therefore of the validity of the deletion. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We recently had a big fat RFC about how notability applies to lists, and particularly when it comes to lists that just index articles, it's certainly not well established that your understanding is the "correct" one (by which I assume you mean, the majority/consensus-supported understanding), let alone the best one. postdlf (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no-consensus. I have a definite opinion about this, and i wish there were clear consensus for my point of view about it--that such a list is appropriate in every respect, both with respect to the intersection, and to the nature of the criteria. I consider my opinion is supported my the ordinary use of the terms, by the general encyclopedic nature of the topic, by the practice of other references works, by the existence of excellent sources, and by the purposes of Wikipedia. I argued at some length why the provision that such intersections are not suitable is wrong, and must be ignored, because it is contrary to our core principles. (I surmise the motive for thinking otherwise is mainly to avoid long disputes over ethnic issues, but I think it is our obligation to accept their acceptance and to resolve them by compromise in the usual fashion, rather than avoid difficult topics--once we avoid some topics as being too charged to handle, we have surrendered the principle of NPOV.) I think similarly about the related AfDs also, all of which will no doubt be here shortly) I would very much like to have been able to convince those who think otherwise. Unfortunately, I was not able to do so. Nor did they convince me and those of the same general opinion. It would be denying the obvious to pretend there was consensus. Any admin who closed that there was consensus in either direction can only be imposing his own view of the issue. Admins do not have a casting vote in such sharply divided situations. If we did, there would be a problem as there are 700 of us, and we would each be in a race to close the way we wanted to close. The only way someone can decide for the community is when there is someone is a position of authority over the others. That's not the case here. Mkativerata made his own judgement of which side was the side he though was correct, as he has the right and obligation to do--what he did not have the right to do was impose it on the community, any more than I would have. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus The close disregarded the rather clear evidence provided that the practice of grouping actors by their religion in this manner is one that is backed by multiple reliable and verifiable sources, including extensive books and scholarly works on the subject. When discussions are so close that microscopic analysis of the arguments on each side must be undertaken, we are far better off with a close of "no consensus" reflecting the fact that there was none reached. Alansohn (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your "multiple reliable and verifiable sources, including extensive books and scholarly works on the subject" undergird secular Jewish culture not List of all actors who have some Jewish ancestry or who practice the Jewish religion. Bulldog123 06:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no-consensus. Counting the !votes, I find two more in favor of keeping. That cannot be a basis for consensus to delete. A do agree that votes should not be crucial in AfD discussions, if arguments and sources cannot be presented in favor of a keep. The deciding argument here was that the intersection of being Jewish and being an actor is not notable. I strongly disagree, multiple reliable sources attest to the notability of the intersection. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse After reading the AfD and going back through the listed article, I would have to agree that the closer made an informed decision by cutting through to the procedural points and applying it at AfD. It appears to be a sticky subject and the keep votes do seem to have merits, but I think the keeps policy quotes were borderline. It would be very hard to source properly a list of jewish actors and create an overwhelming reason to have that intersection viable. A closer has to look at the strength of the discussion, pro and con, and see if there is a valid point of policy to apply. I can think of many Jewish actors who have, or should have, Wiki articles, but they were not notable for being Jewish, and in one case, may have been more notable for making fun of his fellow Jews mainly Mel Brooks. They wee notable as actors and should be listed and treated as such. The category appeals more to me than an article, but either way would be a good choice, IMO. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists are not restricted to facts that are the basis for their entries' notability. That's instead a typical standard applied to categories.
  • "I can think of many Jewish actors who have, or should have, Wiki articles, but they were not notable for being Jewish, and in one case, may have been more notable for making fun of his fellow Jews mainly Mel Brooks." I think there is sense in what you are saying and in the AFD proposed stricter sourcing to show that the person is notable as a Jewish Actor. There are a substantial number of people already in the article that have sources that cover the person's notability as a Jewish actor - either covering how their Jewish background influences a Jewish role, asking how their Jewish upbringing translates to a non-Jewish role, etc, trying to improve the sources for all the others may be difficult but not impossible and was mentioned in the close as something that could be overcome. Regarding Mel Brooks, some of the sources given to try and prove this intersection as notable cover the development of a stereotypical "Jewish character" by Jewish actors, Mel Brooks take this to a level that would be offensive if performed by anyone other than Jewish Actor. There are also actors that are the converse of this such as Sacha Barron Cohen who regularly plays antisemitic characters for a similar reason, again part of the comedy comes from his being able to present these characters with little risk of being considered antisemitic themselves. Either way this enforces rather than diminishes the notability of them as Jewish actors. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see your point, it was and is obvious that " Blazing Saddles" could not have been made, produced and distributed without having Cleavon Little as the star, but that is more to the credit of Mel Brooks writing and directing than his actual acting ability, which was still considerable. As far as some other notable actors, who also happen to be Jewish, I could only thnk of a couple who were notable as being actors and Jewish, far too little to make worth being a list of, and they are notable enough to have stand-alone articles for them. IMO, I dont see why we should need the list when it would be just as constructive to research the individuals, not look at a list. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse - Within admin discretino to gague consensus and overall strength and weakensses of the entries. "I don't like the result" or "I would have close dit differently" are not avalid reasons to overturn. Tarc (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus - I wasn't a huge fan of the article, which is why I stayed out of this one, but i don't see how there was a consensus to delete to be derived from that mess. Its ultimate a supervote rationale that led to the deletion, which is not currently how AfD works.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin. did not close because there was a "consensus to delete." The list was closed because of the reasons mentioned in the closing statement. "supervote rationale"? The delete arguments were much stronger than the keep arguments, and that is what AfD is all about. You can vote "keep" as many times as you want, but if you can't counter the arguments successfully, it won't matter. It's about quality, not quantity.--Therexbanner (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus There should be an extremely high threshold for closing against a numerical superiority; that threshold was not met in this case. If an article is to be deleted it should have a clear and indisputable majority either on the basis of argumentation strength or headcount. If the arguments for deletion are stronger than those for keeping the article--and nothing in my reasoning requires me to disagree with the closing admin that the arguments for deletion were stronger--yet the numerical vote differs, then a "no consensus" close is the only appropriate outcome. Jclemens (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently, despite your reasonably long history on wikipedia, you still don't know that AfDs are not a vote. Also, one !vote is hardly a numeric majority. Bulldog123 20:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with the notion that AfD's without a numerical majority can never be closed as the "minority" viewpoint. There is nothing at WP:DGFA which suggests that that is the case. Also, with this particular instance, we need to take into account the canvassing by Epeefleche which artificially inflated the quantity of votes (presumably to increase the chances of a "No consensus" close). In such cases, I think it is imperative to throw a headcount out the window from the start (especially if the headcount is relatively close), and focus on the substance of the main arguments that were made by both sides. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 20:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• the view generally endorsed except by those who opposed him in the debate on the article, was that he notified widely but fairly. The fuss that was unreasonably made over this seems to have also brought out a considerable number of people who opposed & so to the extent the numbers were biased, it was probably in the other direction. But when feelings are approximately evenly divided, there is no point going by which side happened to have a few percent more votes--unless there is a reasonable extent of agreement, there is no consensus. DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is this so difficult? Epeefleche notified 65 edits neutrally AFTER engaging in a surreptitious email-based canvassing campaign that specifically targeted inclusionists (or rather, people that voted !keep in previous Jewish AfDs). Furthermore, he contacted you before the neutral notifications here. Then, trying to cover-up, he leaves the ridiculous comment: "Hi. I don't know where you will come out on this" -- as if anybody who participates in these AfDs doesn't already know where your stance is. You have been - one of the few - users to remain completely consistent in your opinion, that's why Epeefleche went after you first. You're a guaranteed !keep in his eyes. Whether Epeefleche swayed you - or whether you would have found the AfD by yourself - is irrelevant. In his mind, you were going to vote !keep... and you did. Bulldog123 21:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not the matter at hand take it to RFC/U, however I will state yet again you are making bad faith comments about Epeefleche; his two emails were sent to a Delete voter and a voter who had equally voted once for keep and once for delete not to inclusionists. I should also point out that prior to Epeefleche's emails you canvassed at least NickCT to come to the Actors AFD so your own behaviour is not above reproach here. It was also a common theme among the Nobel Laureate AFD that exclusionist editors were pointed to the Actors one by Jayjg which is another form of canvassing. If you wish to take this line of defence it is just as likely to turn round and bite you. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I am no longer required to assume good faith regarding the neutrality of Epee's canvassing, as he has done it - in bad faith - numerous times before. Would you like the diffs? Regarding your own misreading of WP:CANVASS --- NickCT had recommended I nominate the list beforehand (which you could have easily found here), stating he would support it if I did. I didn't end up nominating it, but someone else did, so I informed him of that, simply out of courtesy. That's not canvassing, but nice try. Also, I still haven't received a reply regarding the validity of List of left-handed actors. If reliable secondary sources is all that's needed to make an indiscriminate list, why is that one not valid? Bulldog123 00:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've seen the diffs, he canvassed once three years ago, that was not reason to assume bad faith in the present. The message to NickCT is not WP:COURTESY, it is WP:VOTESTACKING and it pointed him to two AfD's that were not raised in Nick's original message to you. You also Canvassed for the Chinese Nobel Laureates Afd several times in the Jewish one, which was not WP:Courtesey either. As for List of left-handed actors you would have to prove that this is a notable enough intersection for such a list. Could you write a section for Left-handedness covering acting? Jewish TV,Film and theatre Acting is already covered within Jewish secular culture, and though it needs expansion to better support the list of Jewish actors (or spinout) it is enough to demonstrate the notability of Jewish Actors. If you only have a small number of notably left handed actors, consider a list like Handedness of Presidents of the United States which is a mix of list and prose. Provided you source it well, I wouldn't challenge it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, not once, but several times, and likely more times as a stealth canvasser. Secondly, I linked Nick to pages he participated in prior to the list's nominations... and List of Jewish American entertainers (had you bothered to look before slapping "!keep" in the AfD) encompassed a huge swatch of List of Jewish actors. I informed 1 user about discussions he wanted to know about, not 65 users to cover my tracks after targeting strangers who !vote my way by email. Needless to say, that's not vote-stacking. Thirdly, you're really starting to look desperate with statements like, "You also canvassed for the Chinese Nobel Laureates." If referencing other AfDs in a related AfD is canvassing, Jayjg must have canvassed on both AfDs for List of Jewish actors and List of Jewish American entertainers by including the link to List of Jewish Nobel laureates in the nomination rationale. Some reason you're not attacking him about that? Moral of the story: if you don't know how to use the term "canvass" properly, don't use it. Finally, regarding the actual discussion... If you consider Jewish theatre to be a basis for supporting a list of Jewish actors, what is your criteria for inclusion? Are you planning on participating in a RFC to discuss that criteria if the list were to be restored? Or do you think all actors with Jewish heritage somehow have a connection to Jewish theatre that they themselves don't even know of? And if you do, how is that not original research? tl;dr you're endlessly repeating "there are sources that support an intersection of Judaism and acting/theatre" - yet you're providing no basis for how this applies to all actors of Jewish heritage. Does it also apply to converts and non-theists? To people with a Jewish grandmother? To people with a Jewish father? To people who marry into Judaism? How do you expect users adding individuals to this list to maintain that criteria (when it hasn't been maintainable for four years)? None of the !keep votes addressed this issue, and that's one of the reasons why this outcome was a delete. It's not a maintainable list - and hence - is only a "magnet" for verifiability and BLP issues (which need to be addressed first and foremost). Bulldog123 09:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you think your use of the term Canvassing means you're in the right, then feel free to take Epeefleche to an RfC/U knowing your own actions will be assessed - particularly since you seem to be making claims of Canvassing on the part of Epeefleche that have never been seen before. I have not spoken to Jayjg about his actions because he has cast no hypocrisy against Epeefleche but It's possible his actions could be questioned at any RfC/U as much as yours. As for the debate in hand, I'm quite happy to have an RFC on the criteria but I think they can be established without any sort of dispute resolution like Rfc until they've been debated on the Talk Page. My own personal opinion is that we require reliable sourcing identifying that the individual is notable because they are a Jewish Actor, This was not happening so we had sourced identifying someone's granny as Jewish as a basis for inclusion which is WP:OR if the sources don't specifically state the person is a)Jewish and b)Actor - ideally the sources should further cover the notability of the person's Jewish heritage or conversion on a role or roles or career but that would be decided in the debate. In the close statement it was made clear that issues of maintainability and BLP could be overcome but I guess you haven't read that, the reason for the close was purely that notability had not been answered (and as a consequqence NOTDIR#6 could also apply). Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your support of Epee's behavior merely because he !voted the same way you did comes off as absurd... is all I'm saying. It was an obvious bad faith move, which he's done before, and was temporarily banned for it. Now he's acting like it was all "a grand miscarriage of justice" on his talk page. Admittedly, there's no point in adding insult to injury unless he does it again - but he did do it and he did it with an agenda - that has to be taken into account here. Okay, end of that discussion. Back to your points. You say, ideally the sources should further cover the notability of the person's Jewish heritage or conversion on a role or roles or career. First of all, no "not ideally" but "necessarily." Secondly, yes, I agree with you there. I just hope you understand that would require a complete re-writing of the current list we have, pruning basically 70-80% of the current entries and making it more into a prose article than a list. You have read all of User:All Hallow's Wraith's comments in the AfD -- about how vague, WP:ORy, and unmaintainable those sort of requirements are. If that doesn't convince you there is no sane way to maintain this in list form... then I don't think anything is going to convince you. Bulldog123 00:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Guys. This isn't the forum for accusations of canvassing. That forum is AN:I, and the matter has been raised there, debated by the community, and resolved. Given that the AfD we're talking about closed as delete at first instance, there can be no suggestion that alleged canvassing of Keep voters improperly influenced the result, so how about you move this to your talk pages and focus on the issue at hand? - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but many of the "overturn" people are complaining that there was a majority of keeps (barely), so that's why it's being brought up. Bulldog123 01:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to be clear, I'm not supporting Epeefleche's behaviour - I'm suggesting that if you want to discuss it take it to the appropriate place RfC/U not here. For the discussion, no not "necessarily" there may be individuals who would have to be judged on a case by case basis on the Talk Page if their Jewishness was significantly notable in some other way that wasn't directly career related. I'm less convinced that a 70-80% cull is necessary probably in the region of 50% at most because nearly all actors who were active in the early part of the 20th century are more likely to have struggled through the notable restrictions and or been limited to notable Jewish characters and there should be ample coverage of that in RS even if some of the sources need updated to show that. All Hallow's Wraith's comments were based on a misconception that these were hard and fast OR based criteria - in fact they were suggestions of the kind of thing that RS may consider makes a person notable as Jewish Actor, Just as "Who is a Jew?" was linked to show what criteria may cause a RS to consider the person Jewish. The editor adding the entry would still have to source it with a source that showed the person was notable as a Jewish Actor and that's the real criteria. Once All Hallow's was assured of that fact he stopped objecting to the criteria but appeared to believe my wording of them was wrong - with which I agree but was intending a debate once the article was kept to clarify the wording. As for Prose, Again I agree there should be a prose article to go with this, either an expanded Secular Jewish Culture or a new Secular Jewish Acting and this list should we a "See Also" hatnote from that article listing proponents of Jewish Acting. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• All Hallow's Wraith has no "misconception" as to OR-based criteria. He's been working on sourcing these types of lists far more often than you or I and has certainly been privy to the changes in criteria. Anyway, there isn't going to be any "Talk Page case-by-case discussion" about whether or not an actor's Jewishness was significant "in some other way," because that's exactly what original research is. It's not up for us to decide. We're not synthesizing new material for the encyclopedia, we're merely reporting what's already been reported elsewhere. If John Garfield is listed as only "one example of many" (as you suggest) - well, too bad. We don't know who the "many" are, so we can't report it. Statements like nearly all actors who were active in the early part of the 20th century are more likely to have struggled through the notable restrictions is straight-up original research. Unless sources exist for each individual actually saying this, you're can't add them "under an assumption." Needless to say, good luck finding all those sources. It's going to be a massive (ultimately impossible) undertaking. The final, and most important, point I want to make... is that you're not giving a very convincing reason for why this list (a list that you apparently agree is not appropriate) should be restored. You imply that the new article is better off with a more specific title - something like List of proponents of Jewish Acting (bad title, I know... but you get the point). You also imply that as much as 2/3rds of the list might be pruned and that each entry should also include why this person's Jewishness connects with his acting (ultimately making this an article, not a list). Basically, you're asking that a whole new article be made, yet... instead of just going and making that article, you send this to deletion review. Why? If you're doing it for the list contents... any admin would happily give them to you and you could keep them under User:Stuart.Jamieson/List of Jewish actors. This is pretty standard procedure for "bad articles." Bulldog123 15:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not misrepresent me; I did not say "All Hallow's Wraith has" a "misconception as to OR-based criteria." I said he had a misconceived what I was proposing - That's a very different thing. Similarly "Talk Page case-by-case discussion" is based on WP:Source lists it is deciding whether inclusion is acceptable based on a source which asserts the individual is notable for being a Jewish Actor but makes no consideration of the effect on their acting - perhaps hypothetically a notable actor becomes a Rabbi - is inclusion still warranted would be a matter for discussion under WP:Sl - this is not a matter of synthesising sources to show that one source asserts notable actor and another asserts a notable Jew which would be WP:Synthesis.

Next you cut and paste my comments out of context - The Source given was one which asserts a notable intersection of Judaism and Acting - the fact that the part I identified primarily focuses on John Garfield is neither here nor there and one source would not be used in the article except for the individuals it mentions - again don't misquote me as saying it would. After saying nearly all actors who were active in the early part of the 20th century are more likely to have struggled through the notable restrictions, I go on to say there should be ample coverage of that in RS even if some of the sources need updated to show that. which is not straight-up original research, it's using sources that exist for each individual actually saying this about them. Again I did not claim the title should be changed, but I think that should be the core basis of the list's notability per WP:LISTNAME The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. so List of Jewish Actors covers that and allows any assertion by RS that outwith to be included if the community feel that individual it notable enough (by RS) as a Jewish Actor to need to be included -as above any entry of this type requires consensus that the sources provided support inclusion. I'm suggesting temporarily pruning up to 1/2 not 2/3 to avoid any BLP/WP:N issues and most of that 1/2 can be reinserted as soon as better sources can be found for them and I'm not expecting an explanation of why this persons Jewishness connects with their acting (that should be in their article) I am expecting a source for it though. Finally creating a broadly similar article without consensus would be liable to go straight under WP:CSD#G4 because the notability of the intersection would still be unproven. Deletion Review is the place to question the close statement that was based on an assertion on non-notable Intersection despite sources to the contrary. Finally yes, I have undeleted articles by that method before but it is not appropriate in this case both for the reasons outlined above. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're dwelling way too much on semantics. Your focus on John Garfield is important because it appears that's one of the few actors you pointed out that could potentially/maybe/sort-of be considered a "Jewish actor" by your one source. I didn't intentionally cut and paste your comments out of context and what I said about All Hallow's Wraith was in regards to the list. I don't think he misconstrued (whatever word you want to use) the criteria you wanted. I think your criteria still relies heavily on original research and you're just not seeing it (or ignoring it). I also think if you were to even attempt that list today, you'd be met with a barrage of resistant from the !keep voters who don't agree with you. They're not voting for the list you're proposing. They're !voting for the list that has existed for the last few years... the list of people who are Jewish and who are actors but who don't need a source proving that relationship notable, because, according to them, the list is inherently notable (for some unspecified reason). The fact is you're not requesting to return this list, so why are you even at DR? You're asking for a completely different list that by no means would be deleted per WP:CSD. Wikipedia:DELETE even states an article is allowed to be re-made if it's as different as you're proposing it to be. And your title would have to change because it is no longer clear to anyone who can and can't be included (All Hallow's Wraith gave you many examples of that). "Temporarily pruning" 2/3rds of the list runs under the assumption that 100% of the list can be sourced as to an actor's Jewishness and relationship to acting... which is absurd... unless your criteria is some type of magic criteria that hasn't been found in four years. If a person is a rabbi & an actor, isn't that List of people who are actors and who are Jews and not List of Jewish actors? You said (if) inclusion is acceptable based on a source which asserts the individual is notable for being a Jewish Actor but makes no consideration of the effect on their acting Okay, exactly what type of source is that? Are you suggesting that because Jewish journal describes Lea Michele as a "Jewish actress," that's enough to imply a connection between her Judaism and her acting? Simply because she plays a Jewish actress (like I said above, probably not even of her same heritage), that "makes her Jewishness notable?" Once again, there is no "consensus" on inclusion. Either the person has an explicit references that mentions the notability of their connection to, for example, "Jewish theatre," or they don't. There's no "discussion and consensus-finding" as to whether we can all interpret the source the same way. If it's ambiguous, it's ambiguous. That is original research... not even you can argue that point. Now, I just want to point out something... John Turturro is an actor who's pretty much "well known" for playing really authentic Jewish characters on the screen (i.e., Barton Fink and Herb Stempel from Quiz Show). His wife is Jewish... but he himself is not. Despite the fact that Turturro's connection to "Jewish acting" is probably way stronger than - say - Seth Rogen's (who makes a quip about "Jewfros" and is automatically considered a "Jewish actor" by places like Jewish journal), Turturro would not be included in the list... Am I wrong? The same could be said for many, many gentile actors. Now do it vice-versa. And so we open up a can of worms. As if your criteria is not already confusing as hell for the average wikipedia editor (who is simply not going to understand why he needs all these specific references before pointing out that Wentworth Miller has a Jewish great-grandmother), it also excludes people with strong relationships to "Jewish characters" or "Judaism in cinema" simply because they themselves are not of that heritage/religion. The list you want back is not the list at AfD. You should have opened up a WP:RFC and not a DR. Your agenda here is hazy at best... and it's beginning to look more like last-ditch attempts at winning an argument than actually re-defining the term "Jewish actor" for an entire encyclopedia. Bulldog123 23:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: List of left-handed actors - because (a) the topic must be a non-trivial intersection, as demonstrated through compliance with the general notability guideliens (you'd need significant discussion in reliable sources of the topic of "left-handed actors", rather than just actors who are left-handed), (b) the list must be of sufficiently compact scope to be useful, or be capable of being subdivided so as to be useful, and (c) each entry on the list must be notable per the list topic, so each entry would have to be notably an actor AND notably left-handed. I'd think the number of people who are notably-left handed would be quite low, and few of them actors. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I don't think Stuart.Jamieson really provides a policy based argument for overturning. Simple fact is, this list included a lot of names of people who's ethnicity/religion was not relevant to their notability. Hence, it was a violation of WP:BLPCAT. NickCT (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair that's a fairly weak argument,

1. BLPCAT does not cover Ethnicity, so claiming that it's not relevant to notability isn't showing a breach of BLPCAT.
2. Lists were only recently added to BLPCAT with no attempt to correct any of the existing LP Lists on the notability relevance basis.
3. That section of BLPCAT is a specific case of WP:OCAT - we should avoid over-categorisations by not using contentious categories except where notable. Over-categorisation is not a problem in lists so applying to lists is inappropriate.
4. If a source discusses the notability of their Jewishness in regard to their work (which was the case with a number of LP's) then it is relevant to their notability.
5. Even if all that were not the case the ideal situation is to remove all LP's and then re-add those where Jewishness is clearly shown by sources to contribute to their notability.

Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus, as the AfD shows that there was indeed no consensus to delete. At some point, when the closer asserts that the "(not-)vote" has been set aside and the arguments evaluated from an "objective standpoint", it becomes a matter of the closer making a decision on the basis of his/her own views, which is not how AfDs should be closed. Imposing one's own view is the only possible way one could get to "consensus to delete" in that AfD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What is this "closer closed based on self view?" Where is there evidence of this? The !keep arguments in the original AfD were simply unconvincing and this deletion review is being used as "AfD version 2" (with all the !keep voters showing up from various recent Jewish AfDs and re-hashing the same tired arguments), instead of a real discussion about whether the closer made the right call at the time. Let's review why the !keep arguments were weak. Note: If I misrepresent what you typed at the time, then please change it. I'm trying to prove why this was an obvious and fair delete consensus when the closer read it, and therefore has no real basis to be brought to deletion review.

Keep - User:Stuart.Jamison - Admits the list has had problems but disagrees that it's a WP:BATTLEGROUND, pointing out most of the big issues with the list were solved in good faith. Explains that the list is notable because "the majority of people on the list have made some attempt to connect with Jewish Culture by playing Jewish roles". I later pointed out that's not true at all (which I still don't see any evidence to suggest I was wrong). Stuart also comments that the list is a much better alternative to a category.

Keep - User:Shadowjams - Says he's concerned about the "notability requirements" of this article (which sounds like a deletion argument) but then goes on to say he thinks it is still okay if given a specified criteria. Townlake asks if he can provide that criteria because the current one is proving to be unmaintainable. In the end, Shadowjams unconsciously provides one of the strongest reasons for deletion: The list cannot exist without a more specific criteria (because then it would be an indiscriminate list) but the criteria is almost impossible to specify without WP:OR and WP:POV problems.

Keep - User:Epeefleche - Says the notability of the list is already proven because there are 600-refs on the list. Of course, this argument made no sense whatsoever, as those refs only mentioned whether the person was Jewish, not whether their acting had anything to do with their Judaism.

Keep - User:JoshuaZ - Says the article should be kept per Stuart's mentioned improvements. "Improvements" meaning adjustment of the scope of the article and its inclusion criteria. Of course, no specified inclusion criteria was given yet, and as is suggested later by User:All Hallow's Wraith's - it's actually quite impossible to come up with an inclusion criteria that isn't going to open a giant can of worms, along with all the WP:BLP. WP:OR, and WP:V issues.

Keep - User:JackJud - Says keep per Stuart, presumably restating JoshuaZ's point. Note that this account appeared very much like a Single Purpose Account (with less than 100 edits at the time - almost all edits just adding Jewish categories or Jewish list links to the article space. i.e., [3]). It popped in, gave its two cents on a recent spat of Jewish AfDs, then disappeared again: [4].

Keep - User:Broccoli - Says keep per Epeefleche. Considering Epeefleche's keep vote made the least sense of anybody's - as anybody who read it would have seen - this was basically just a "throwaway" !vote.

Keep - User:Davshul - Says list should be kept because QUOTE "It is an interesting list to read" END QUOTE

Keep - User:Shooterwalker - Says the list should be kept because "an entire book was written about it" - Patricia Erens's book "The Jew in American Cinema." I pointed out that that is entirely misleading as 98% of the book is about Jewish characters and portrayals of Jews in Hollywood cinema. Anyone can take a look for themselves. Furthermore, the term "Jewish actor" appears only 10 times in the entire book, and each time is only used as an aside, referencing something ironic: Jewish actor playing a gentile or a gentile actor playing a Jew, etc...

Keep - User:Modernist - Says list should be kept because of the improvement to the inclusion criteria. Considering the giant discussion above him between Stuart and All Hallow's Wraith about how unmanageable (and WP:POV and WP:OR-prone) the criteria would actually become... this seemed like Modernist really wasn't paying much attention to the discussion.

Keep - User:DGG - Not really easy for me (or anyone else) to understand DGG's view on lists. it's a special one that basically supports any group + occupation list of any type as long as the individual parts can be verified. He states, "The principle should be that every defined binary ethnic or religious or national intersection with occupations or professions or prizes or anything else ought to be kept, both as a list and a category--the only ones that should require evidence of the intersection itself being significant are tertiary intersections, and the standard of proof for that should not be very onerous." I'll let people make of that what they will.

Keep - User:Eversman - Says the list should not be deleted because Jews are a nation (a controversial, WP:POVy view that is not generally accepted) and that if we were to delete this list, we should delete all American-ethnicity lists as well.

Keep - User:Schmidt - Says that "per established precedent" (not sure which) the list should be kept, and goes on to say that references to WP:DIR are a misinterpretation of policy. Seems to be referring to WP:DIR as a whole and not just Part #6.

Keep - User:StarBlueHeather - Says that the article being a "magnet for WP:BLP, WP:POV, and WP:V violations" is not reason enough to delete it (though that isn't the only reason given). Does not otherwise state why it should be kept. Requests a broader "Request for Comment" be made.

Keep - User:Wikidemon - Brings forth three references which he says substantiates the list (including [5]), I point out his references are mostly in support of secular Jewish culture and not an indiscriminate list of all people who happen to profess Jewish religion or ethnicity. (Also, not much reference to Jewish actors in particular). Brings forth some analogy about American chefs I have yet to fully understand.

Keep - User:ColonelWarden - Brings forth two references we've already seen, and that support secular Jewish culture more than a list. Goes on to say because of such references a list of actors is acceptable. User:Therexbanner points out that this is only of secondary concern, because the main problem is that the criteria for inclusion is unmaintainable and undefinable - as mentioned numerous times above.

Keep - User:Petri Krohn - His whole !keep vote said: QUOTE "cannot specify exactly who is Jewish" is not a valid criteria for deletion. END QUOTE Basically no point there.

Keep - User:Rangoon11 - Says the list should be kept because it's a QUOTE "Interesting and informative list" END QUOTE

• Now, I'm not saying that all the delete !votes were Shakespeare. There were plenty of lame ones too, but the broader points were never disproved or fully addressed, and they reflected the urgency of needing to have this list removed (WP:BLP being one of those urgent concerns). Needless to say, this deletion review is starting to come off as an attempt to try to push this list into being kept via a "no consensus" close --- when the general consensus was pretty much indisputable in the original AfD. Bulldog123 23:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Closing admin accurately summarized policy-based discussion. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Why was it deleted and not the List of Italian American entertainers? or the List of Muslim writers and poets? 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.Wm.Pittman (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

— Wm.Pittman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Three-day-old user who seems to have perfect knowledge of AfD and Deletion Review process. I highly recommend somebody investigate this. Bulldog123 23:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPA account was blocked. Bulldog123 05:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second a check.

To Wm.Pittman: The list was deleted for the reasons stated by the closing administrator. A deletion review is not a re-examination of the arguments. It is about discussing closing procedures (which were implemented appropriately, IMHO).

Even when the closing administrator is clearly wrong and the decision smacks of racism? Wikipedia is earning itself quite a reputation for treating Jews differently form other ethnic groups.Wm.Pittman (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't jump to push the racism buttom. Racism is a very real and serious issue and calling upon it with anything less than the best of cause trivialises it. I can assure you that in the case of this debate and this admin it's a totally groundless accusation. It's not only possible but common for an admin to be wrong while still acting in good faith. Which, by the way, you're required to assume, where there's any doubt. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if you have any problems with the lists you mentioned, put them up for AfD. Otherwise, saying this list should remain (regardless of its quality and/or policy compliance) because there are others, is a classic example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

I would also like to emphasize the fact that "consensus" comes from the strength of the arguments presented, and not the sheer number of votes. The reasoning behind that policy is that otherwise no decision (about anything) would ever be made. In every single discussion there are opposing views, and as far as I know, there hasn't been any controversial/sensitive deletion (non-speedy) where all/most editors agreed on an outcome.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I have had changing views on this, and if you look at my comments over the last 2 or 3 years you can find them all. I have finally come to the conclusion that such intersections are always encyclopedic, and should always be given the broadest possible definition. (There may sometimes be a need for a narrower intersection also, e.g, Orthodox Jewish actors. My conclusion is based upon the realization that avoiding editing difficulties amounts to de facto self-censorship,pretending group identification does not really matter so it need not be talked about. Wikipedia has a tendency to avoid editing difficulties in this sort of way, and its time we grew up beyond it DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, so... according to this epiphany... any list is valid as long as it's verifiable. Bulldog123 17:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good Suggestion Bulldog (even if DGG led you to it) that fits in perfectly with "Wikipedia incorporates elements of general and specialized almanacs." WP:FIVE. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure what you're talking about, but okay. Bulldog123 05:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus, per nom, Wikidemon, and others above. There was in fact no consensus to delete at the AfD. In addition to the headcount not being in favor of deletion, the arguments to keep were more policy-based and hued more closely to the facts. Multiple reliable sources attested to the notability of the intersection.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Keep close just now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Jewish entertainers may well prove of interest, as many of the same parties advanced many of the same arguments as here and at the AfD below.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse own close. I was open to the prospect of seeing someone here question the way that I closed the debate to such a convincing extent that I would be open to having it overturned. That hasn't happened. This DRV is as partisan as the AfD: not a single keep !voter accepting that the close was within discretion; not a single delete !voter giving anything other than a ringing endorsement. Some editors (including, surprisingly, Jclemens) have referred to the majority for a keep outcome, suggesting a delete outcome was impossible in light of that. That approach obviously has no basis in policy. Admins have to look at arguments: we can't let wikipedia be beholden to whichever side of a partisan debate can rustle up more numbers. Bulldog's vote-by-vote analysis above shows (whether you agree with all his comments or not) that arguments have to be given more weight in such a partisan debate. No-one here has genuinely suggested that my interpretation of the debate was wrong (apart from DGG who in an unfortunate moment of apparent ABF suggests I imposed my own views on the community - I would have hoped DGG could understand the difference between preferring the side you agree with, versus objectively analysing the strength of both sides' arguments). So I'm going to argue it should be endorsed.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you did was to substitute your own analysis of policy for that of the community. It should have been clear from the debate, and it is amply clear here now, that there is not a community consensus for deleting the list. A number of longstanding, respected members of the community have made policy-based arguments for keeping the list, and whether you agree with those arguments or not you chose sides based on your own reasoning, not that of the community's. Framing this as a "partisan" issue that requires an administrator weigh in as a tie-breaker or referee seems to undermine the goals of consensus and steps away from what I take to be the nature of deletion discussions. If the outcome was a matter of discounting arguments because of a presumption of partisanship, that is yet another flaw in the process. When you advance your own analysis as being the right one over that of other editors then it does become relevant whether or not your interpretation of policy is correct. Of course, people who have already reached their conclusions are probably not going to change their minds if asked a second time. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you did was to substitute your own analysis of policy for that of the community With comments like that, I wonder if you know how AfDs actually work...
    • Of course, people who have already reached their conclusions are probably not going to change their minds if asked a second time. If you're referring to a handful of !keep voters from various Jewish AfDs who aggregated (or possibly were directed) here to engage in "AfD part 2" for an AfD they missed out on... then yes... you're right. We also have some !keep voter desperate enough to either be soliciting help from a friend or to have willfully created an SPA account: [6]. Whoever that is must surely be an immensely "respected" member of the community. Bulldog123 06:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have asked you once already to tone things down. Please stick to the subject of this page, and if you have any behavioral complaints about other editors take that to the appropriate forum. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So... I'm not allowed to make comments on an SPA account's bizarre behavior but... you are allowed to accuse Mkativerata of closing based on his own beliefs, with no evidence to support that? Bulldog123 10:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You got it. This page is for discussing the validity of the closing of the AfD, not for denigrating other participants' abilities, motivations, or good faith. I'd also appreciate not being misquoted. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You and I must have very different definitions of "denigrating other participants' motivations/good faith." I'm talking about a certified, blocked troll (whose comments further solidified that classification). You're talking about an admin who appears to have acted in good faith. Also, quotation marks are not always used to imply verbatim cut-and-paste quoting. However, I see how it can be viewed that way here. I italicized it. Nonetheless, that appears to be your position. Bulldog123 11:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • My request stands, as does my first comment above. I prefer to stick to the topic, and have no desire to spar over it. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Last comment from me and mostly a response to the DR nomination rationale. The original research and synthesis needed to support this list would be massive, and the connection between Stuart's sources and each individual occupant on this list is non-existent. I'm especially baffled by the baseless claim: "The majority of people on the list have made some attempt to connect with Jewish Culture by playing Jewish roles." Really? Playing a Jewish role immediately makes someone a "Jewish actor" if they're Jewish by blood? Okay, for example, because Lea Michele's father was Sephardic Jewish, this somehow relates to the fact that she's playing a Jewish character on Glee, and it affects her enough to make that Jewish character... what?... more authentically Jewish? Is that what Stuart meant when he said this source connects Michele's Judaism to her acting? So John Turturro, who won critical acclaim for his depictions of "Jewish neurosis" with characters like Barton Fink and Herb Stempel, and Daniel Craig, who played righteous, passionate Jews in Munich and Defiance, would both be excluded because they're gentiles by blood? Does Ben Kingsley get added to the list because he played a Jew in Schindler's List and because he once said "I am not absolutely certain, but to the best of my knowledge, I am one-quarter Jewish on my mother's side," and then added "It gets a little ludicrous to quantify such things. It's like counting chromosomes or measuring the shapes of noses." (Basically announcing that he doesn't give a shit). How far can we milk this? In Two Lovers, Joaquin Phoenix plays a Jewish man trapped in a love triangle between the sultry gentile character played by Gwyneth Paltrow (who presents him with "adventure" and "a way out of tradition") and the caring, family-oriented, parent-approved Jewish counterpart played by Vinessa Shaw. Note, this seems to be a cultural phenomenon experienced by Jewish families in America today - so it's very relevant. Is Paltrow now eligible for the list because of the "irony" of her playing a gentile despite being half-Jewish? Is Shaw going to get added to the list too because she played a Jewish character and, although most of her family doesn't appear to be ethnically Jewish, her paternal grandfather's surname was "Schwartz?" Is Phoenix also now worthy of being added because he probably brought more "Jewishness" to the role by being half-Jewish? Are the religiously Jewish Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor going to be excluded because they're not ethnically Jewish, but the atheist Lewis Black included because he makes a couple of Jewish jokes here and there? tl;dr I think we all have way better things to do on wikipedia than maintain this type of mess under false pretenses - and yes, they are false pretenses - because all those tangentially-related sources being thrown around have nothing to do with any randomly selected person from this list. As Jayjg stated when he first brought this to AfD, the list is nothing but a magnet for BLP, V, and OR violations. I should also add - no related list exists on any other wikipedias. To gauge the "notability of this list", take into account its contents have been reproduced online almost exclusively to support Jewish conspiracy sites and Jewish pride forums (both very encyclopedic, I suppose). As it stands right now, it has no inherent "notable" value and is an indiscriminate "trivia" list, synthesizing an overreaching relationship where one doesn't exist. Bulldog123 05:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus per DGG. Consensus was that the intersection was notable, but the application of that intersection created editing difficulties. The closer points to editing difficulties such as (i) the article included some entries of non Jewish actors playing Jewish roles, (ii) the article included some entries of actors who were Jewish, but there was no support between the actual intersection between their "Judaism" (what ever that might be) and acting and (iii) the article included some entries of non Jewish actors playing Jewish roles (the closer essentially repeated this twice). These do not point to a lack of notability of the topic as concluded by the closer, these point to editing difficulties of the Wikipedia article. The close was wrong to use Wikipedia content to evaluate and conclude on WP:GNG. The close was wrong to assert that the article topic was require to be a culturally significant phenomenon because, per NOT Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, the intersection names of cross-categories in some way need to be a culturally significant phenomenon. The close sought to avoid editing difficulties by pretending group identification does not really matter so it need not be talked about. This amounts to de facto self-censorship. If Wikipedia continues to choose to solve its editing difficulties by deleting notable topics rather than make the hard editing choices, Wikipedia will continue to lose editors with the skills to make the hard editing choices. With less editors with the skills to make the hard editing choices, more notable content will be deleted from Wikipedia under justification similarly listed for this article. That is the wrong direction. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (i) No, the intersection present in this list was not deemed to be notable by consensus. Almost all the !keep voters are asking for content to be changed, removed, or added... basically completely changing the list. Also, content is not "lost" by deleting this list. (i) I don't believe it's been established anywhere that the name "Jewish actors" indicates a culturally significant phenomenon. "Actors in Yiddish theatre," yes. "People who are Jews and who are also actors," no. Bulldog123 11:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it so it doesn't seem like its just my opinion. Bulldog123 16:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll try to break it down for you again, because you're not advancing your arguments, just repeating your opinions. This way if you actually see an invalid premise in what I write, we can deal with that specifically. First, this list could have been and should have been subdivided by nationality. Second, lists of people who have articles organized by their shared cultural/ethnic heritage are encyclopedic, because we include such information in their own articles, and it is standard practice to make lists of articles based on biographical information the subjects shared in common even if they have no other connection and even if that information is not the source of their notability. Third, unless we are going to have enormous, completely undifferentiated lists of people by ethnic heritage, these lists need to be subdivided in some way, and by occupation is a sensible and encyclopedic way to do that. Fourth, the fact that in many countries the interaction of this, and other ethnicities, with acting as an occupation, has been the subject of multiple reliable sources further proves that such a sublist is not only encyclopedic (and thus sufficiently valid) but based on a notable topic. Discuss. postdlf (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite your condescending intro there, this is the first time you have advanced the position that this particular list should be saved because it's just a subdivision of a larger ethnic list. Before you seem to have agreed with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT crew, the two or three users vomiting out stuff like, "Backed by numerous reliable sources! Hence the intersection is notable! Blah blah blah!" So what do you mean by... again? Anyway...
• First, this list could have been and should have been subdivided by nationality.

Okay, not really pertinent, but okay. This list - I believe - was originally List of Jewish American actors before it got moved.

• Second, lists of people who have articles organized by their shared cultural/ethnic heritage are encyclopedic, because we include such information in their own articles, and it is standard practice to make lists of articles based on biographical information the subjects shared in common even if they have no other connection and even if that information is not the source of their notability.

This wasn't an AfD for the deletion of all ethnic lists. Nobody is advocating that... yet. (Some people are working towards it though on RfC pages)

• Third, unless we are going to have enormous, completely undifferentiated lists of people by ethnic heritage, these lists need to be subdivided in some way, and by occupation is a sensible and encyclopedic way to do that.

The list is not designed to house all people. It's designed to house a few "good examples." Hence: List of Germans. I'd hate to see what your List of Germans would look like.

• Fourth, the fact that in many countries the interaction of this, and other ethnicities, with acting as an occupation, has been the subject of multiple reliable sources further proves that such a sublist is not only encyclopedic (and thus sufficiently valid) but based on a notable topic.

Every "reliable source" presented here is great for something like Portrayal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity in Cinema or maybe even Judaism in cinema. I don't believe I need to repeat (for the trillionth time) why it doesn't apply to the list under AfD. Bulldog123 16:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussion over? I don't think any more could be said. We're not even discussing whether this was a reasonable close or not (which is what DR is for). We're just re-hashing old AfD material. Bulldog123 16:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "...this is the first time you had advanced the position that...it's just a subdivision of a larger ethnic list." Actually, my first comment here did that. I see nothing else worth further comment here. postdlf (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I was referring to your AfD comments but I was mistaken nonetheless. I didn't realize your other comments were on Jewish entertainers and not this list. Sorry about that. Bulldog123 18:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus as nom, over this weekend I've chosen not to comment until now, as any attempt would again see Bulldog barking out minutiae that have no real bearing on this debate and just lead in circles. If the question is, did the closing administrator close correctly then again I stand by my original argument that all the closing arguments could were addressed by the keep side but were dismissed by the closing Admin in favour of Bulldog's yet again unproven claim of irrelevance. Even Analysing the sources here Bulldog continues to dismiss them despite the fact they clearly show this as a notable intersection on the basis that they don't then list every actor - that's not the point, the point is that this is a notable intersection - individuals on the list have separate sources showing that their individual inclusion is justified. The debate also raises the question of whether the notable intersection applies to all the entires. I think Postdlf sums up the reasoning keeping best above, despite Bulldogs further claims that these sources only justify creating a prose article (BTW Bulldog, claiming that proves this is a notable intersection exists per WP:N), however that line debate is similar to asking if a non-notable song by a notable artist belongs in their discography, we try to be as complete as possible even even if songs are not notable as belonging to that artist. Good sourcing should ensure that all entries are covered, as being Jewish Actors and if the source asserts the person is a Jewish Actor then it is identifying this as a notable fact about the person. I think there are issues that need to be dealt with regarding sourcing but they are not insurmountable and arguments made on that basis were rightly dismissed by the closing admin. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah... just so you know... bringing something to DR is asking for it to be overturned because of an unjust close. You don't bring something to DR to endorse the close. If anything, this just proves that your whole attempt here was to create AfD part 2, which is an inappropriate use of Deletion Review. And I'm not going to bark out what a vast misrepresentation of my position everything you typed up there is. But I will "bark" this:
• BTW Bulldog, claiming that proves this is a notable intersection exists per WP:N Playing dumb won't work here. Portrayal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity in Cinema or Judaism in cinema is in no way the "prose article version" of this list. The prose article needed to prove this list a notable intersection per WP:N would be something like Jewish ethnicity and Acting or Ethnically Jewish actors (which BTW, you actually admitted is not a notable intersection because you're asking this list be completely changed -- so it baffles me why you're going back on that position now and acting like this list is already a notable intersection). Bulldog123 09:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I did bring it here to overturn it, I just wasn't previously clear whether I wanted it overturned to Keep, or overturned to No-Consensus and since some other's contributing to the debate have stated "Overturn to no consensus per Stuart.Jamieson", I felt it appropriate I should make that clear before the debate ended. I did not raise this to be AFD pt2, I raised it because I believe the close was unjust and the recent close of Jewish British Entertainers is already showing that the intersection is notable and this AfD should not have been close on the basis of no notability. Secondly I'm not convinced by your Ethnicity argument, whilst one of the sources is about ethnicity and the connection between ethnically Jewish actors and their performances. I believe the list covers the wider intersection of Jewish Culture and Acting and have said so on several time - highlighting the fact that Secular Jewish culture should be the head article. I don't believe there should be any pigeonholing of who is or isn't ethnically, religiously Jewish (which would be OR and something that the article already needs cleaned of not adding more) and we should only look for an identification of "Jewish" from reliable sources whether or not the source identifies whether the individual is ethnically or religiously Jewish. I have never denied this list is a notable intersection - you are the one who has made that claim that I am "Looking for a different list" or something similar, this is the list I want - I do believe there should be debate about the inclusion criteria and about how many existing entries already meet that criteria and what to do with the rest but that is a debate for the talk page not for an DR, I have my opinion but if it has no consensus then it will not be put into place - you talk like I should already have another article and that it would automatically be accepted - that's not the case and a debate on the talk page needs to occur once the AFD is overturned. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• recent close of Jewish British Entertainers is already showing that the intersection is notable

Community consensus (or rather, "majority vote" from the same four or five AfD-hopping individuals) does not determine notability. That's original research 101. I'm shocked I even read that.

• whilst one of the sources is about ethnicity and the connection between ethnically Jewish actors and their performances.

Link to that one again, please. And page numbers.

• I have never denied this list is a notable intersection

Allow me to show one of the several places you have: Not all Jewish Actors are notable for being Jewish Actors, however those that are should be listed. This is a list of all Jewish actors. You just stated I have never denied this list is a notable intersection. That statement above contradicts this. You want a list that only includes individuals whose Judaism is relevant to their acting career. Your criteria for that is all over the place, with no direction whatsoever. You want us to have some sort of talk page discussion panel on finding a criteria - who to include and who not to include. We don't do that. That's original research. "Jewish actors" is just that. A list of "people who are Jewish and who are actors." For something else, you need a name change per WP:NOTDIR #6 because the name "Jewish actors" is not, by itself, a notable intersection -- as "being Jewish" and "being an actor" is not a culturally significant phenomenon. You, personally, may consider that to be a notable intersection, but there's nothing to support you in that. Also, I'm not the only who thinks this article doesn't work. Here and in the previous AfD, numerous people have suggested that this list right now (without improvements) does not maintain notability, including DustFormsWords, Yworo, SnottyWong, Wolfstorm, JN466, Therexbanner, All Hallow's Wraith, and the old Stuart.Jamison.

• you talk like I should already have another article and that it would automatically be accepted

If it was based on sources that specifically say "This person's ethnic heritage influenced his acting because..." (not in those words, but in that general gist)... then yes, it would be automatically accepted. Wikipedia users do not create lists based on "community consensus"... but based on what multiple reliable sources state. If multiple reliable sources exist (which you seem to claim they do) to support that criteria, there's no valid reason a list wouldn't be "accepted."

• ...and we should only look for an identification of "Jewish" from reliable sources whether or not the source identifies whether the individual is ethnically or religiously Jewish.

Yet again, Synthesis 101. If you're building a list on the basis of the notability between Jewish ethnicity and acting. You cannot include individuals who are not ethnically Jewish. Therefore, merely using a link that says "Jewish" is improper if there exists another source that states they are converts. If, however, you're building a list based on the notability between Elements in Judaism as a religion with Acting (which is what some of the sources say - most notability the Jewish theatre ones), then you can't include merely ethnic, non-religious Jews.

• I believe the list covers the wider intersection of Jewish Culture and Acting and have said so on several time...

You can believe that all you want, but your belief doesn't support the existence of a list. Not every actor with ethnically Jewish blood has a connection to "Jewish culture" and "Jewish culture" does not directly have a connection to "acting" -- and not a single source presented has stated otherwise (though that's obvious).

• ...highlighting the fact that Secular Jewish culture should be the head article.

Secular Jewish culture has one section on Yiddish theatre which is totally irrelevant for everyone on this list except Boris Thomashefsky. Its section on "Film" is three paragraphs long. One paragraph is about films in Yiddish. Relevant for maybe three or four people on this list at most. The second paragraph is about Jews founding the studio system. Not relevant to this list. The third (and frankly, ridiculous) paragraph is just a list of Jewish film composers. The section on "Radio and television" briefly mentions The Goldbergs - a Jewish sitcom - and then goes on to provide a contentless list of some Jewish comedians and Jewish show-starters. It's basically "Look who's Jewish!" trivia, providing no content on why it's relevant. How on earth does any of that provide a head article for this list?

• Summary Despite what you're saying now, you originally wanted this list to only include actors whose Judaism somehow influences their acting. You want people to "create" a criteria for this list. Considering the title of the list is "Jewish actors," we can't do that without resorting to some kind of OR. Even if we could, Townlake and Span, in the previous AfD, both make the same point that finding a neutral criteria for this list is impossible. All Hallow's Wraith gave examples of that in the AfD. I gave plenty of examples of that above. There might be a source somewhere that says a few Jewish actors were persecuted or pigeonholed into playing only Jewish roles. Okay, for those actors - if you can find their names - create a list. For the other 200+ actors, you have nothing. Bulldog123 17:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, you really can't help yourself can you - you simply have to try and argue even when your arguments resemble nothing I've said to you and ignore our previous discussions on the subject - Feel free to keep going...

1. You disagree with the closing admin on List of British Entertainers, take it to another Deletion Review or submit it for an AfD at the moment it stands as not trivial or arbitrary,
2. I've listed the sources and if you can't tell which one has the word "ethnicity" in the title then I can't help you I'm afraid - You have failed to provide any sources that claim that Jewish Actors are an Arbitrary grouping, all you can do is try and discredit the wealth of sources that suggest otherwise - unfortunately picking holes in 1 or 2 does not stop them being reliable nor deal with the wealth of other texts on the subject.
3. That is not a claim that this is not a notable intersection, it is a claim that some entries are not notable as Jewish Actors, I've stated before that I disagree with the inclusion of Singers or Models who may have some screen time (either as themselves or in character) but it is only a tiny part of their career and hardly makes them notable as an Actor (Jewish or Otherwise). It is also a statement that if there is no coverage in sources of either their being Jewish and being an Actor they don't get included.
4. Again you bring in the word ethnicity, this is your word not mine - This is a list of "Jewish Actors" it is not a list of "Actors who practise Judaism" or a list of "Actors with some Jewish ethnicity" sources have to explicitly state that the person is Jewish - This was Jayjg's interpretation of BLP policy and I see no reason to change from that.
5. I'll say again, all but one of the sources give failed to distinguish between Ethnic Jewishness and others are very clear that they are about Jewish culture so putting it down to "My belief" is again dismissing the notable intersection that is proven by sources.
6. The sources given should either be used to improve Secular Jewish Culture as a head article, or another head article should be written based on this notable intersection. Your attempt to dismiss this as an argument seems to be based around some belief that WP is complete and that the head article should be a reliable source justifying the existence of the list - per:WP:IRS this is not the case and in fact List and category policy are based on the principal that the head article *could* be written not that it already has been. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you flip-flop between positions and intentionally ignore the major points (those being: impossibility of finding criteria that will establish notability between an actor's Judaism and their acting/sources do not substantiate this list), yes, I'll keep going. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm consistent in my position and always have been.

1. I don't take things to DR just because I disagree with the outcome. That seems more like something you'd do.
2. If you're referring to Acting Jewish: Negotiating Ethnicity on the American Stage and Screen, we've long ago established what that has to offer. For God's sake, the title alone tells you what the book is about. An hour of skimming the limited preview and it's exactly what it says it is.
3. You have failed to provide any sources that claim that Jewish Actors are an Arbitrary grouping - Yeah... I'm sorry... there is no book in existence called "Jewish Actors: It's an Irrelevant Intersection! by J.J. Marks". That remark was a little desperate. All you can do is try and discredit the wealth of sources that suggest otherwise - That's what we do on Wikipedia. We try to find sources that are relevant. Unfortunately, you haven't found any. You found a sentence here and there that's "kind of/barely" related to the subject... and that's about it. Anyone who has a "neutral" position on this can tell you that. That books exist with the words "Jewish" and "Acting" in the title isn't helping prove that "being Jewish" and "being an actor" creates fairy-dust magic that makes everyone deemed Jewish by some source share an otherwise unrealized cultural bond.
4. The sources given should either be used to improve Secular Jewish Culture as a head article, or another head article should be written based on this notable intersection. - Yes, that would be nice. And no, that the head article isn't complete (or even very good) isn't my point. My point is the head article has not even the slightest bit of content supporting this list. And judging from the sources you've given, probably will never have relevant content. So how is it even considered a head article? That's like saying Lesbians is enough of a head article for List of LGBT physicists.
5. Yes, that BLP requires us to shut our minds off and only report when someone is "Jewish" is the whole reason this list is such a mess and should be deleted and is part of the reason why this intersection is such a huge synthesis of unrelated material. It's also what All Hallow's Wraith and I are talking about when we're showing you why there is no possible criteria for inclusion without it being out-right OR.
6. Since you're just going to plow forward with this "Sources prove notable intersection!" ridiculousness... I'll go through the provided sources one-by-one:

1. The Jew in American Cinema (Jewish Literature and Culture) by Patricia Erens

Here is the synopsis on Amazon: Placing cinematic representations of the "Jew" within their historical context, Bartov demonstrates the powerful political, social, and cultural impact of these images on popular attitudes. He argues that these representations generally fall into four categories: the "Jew" as perpetrator, as victim, as hero, and as anti-hero. Examples range from film's early days to the present, from Europe, Israel, and the United States.

Could it be any more clear? Because the book occasionally (about 7 times) mentions a Jewish actor was befittingly chosen for a Jewish role, does not justify a giant list of all actors who are Jewish nor does it make "being Jewish" and "being an actor" any more notably connected.

1. Jewish identities in German popular entertainment, 1890-1933 By Marline Otte

Book doesn't seem to talk about Jewish actors at all, with the exception of mentioning that Jewish actors at the Metropol Theatre rejected typecasting. Okay. Also mentions that Jewish actors didn't like to make their Jewishness apparent in the theatre, preferring to keep their personal lives private. Yeah... the same can be said for basically all actors of any background - especially "ethnic" actors. Assimilation because of zenophobia and racism isn't a specifically Jewish phenomenon and by no means justifies this list (where 90% of the occupants never faced racism, zenophobia, or anti-semitism in their career-lives).

1. Jewish Culture and Identity in the Soviet Union By Yaacov Ro'i, Avi Beker

Doesn't talk about "Jewish actors" in the sense this list describes at all. Does mention "Yiddish actors" and a theatre with Mountain Jews. Great for History of the Jews in Russia.

1. America on film: representing race, class, gender, and sexuality at the movies By Harry M. Benshoff, Sean Griffin

Talks about Jewish actors hiding their ethnicity and Christianizing themselves by Americanizing their names. Something the book suggests is by no means a "Jewish phenomenon," but a phenomenon within every single ethnic/religious group of actors. If you want to make a list called List of actors forced to hide their ethnicity by changing their names... okay...

1. Acting: an International encyclopedia by Beth Osnes

Like you already said, talks about the expulsion of Jews from German theatres. Who on this list does that apply to exactly?

Honestly... are we done here? You can promulgate that these sources "establishes universal notability of this intersection" but anyone can see for themselves that all you have here are tangentially-related informational tidbits that do nothing of the sort. Bulldog123 20:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fine load of Hyperbole there. Outwith these sources, the article is full of reliable sources about individuals where having Jewishness as an Actor or Entertainer(pertaining to acting) is identified as notable[7][8] [9][10]your attempts to suggest otherwise with the above links whilst repeating off events and experiences that simply highlight rather than diminish that notability. As for flip-floping, I have never flip-floped, otherwise I would not have campaigned for this list in it's current format to be kept. I have however tried to show a willingness to make concessions to those suggesting it should be deleted on the grounds of missing inclusion criteria or general notable intersection in an attempt to ensure that a core notable intersection with criteria might survive if nothing else. You pick and choose which arguments you wished to make against me and if you have chosen ones which represent those concessions then that was your choice and not an identification that I have flipped positions. If anyone has made this an AfD2 look at your own position which regularly disagrees with the closing Admin who stated that managability of the list was not a reasonable excuse to delete, yet still you raise this as a reason the list should be deleted. This deletion review is on whether the admin closed properly, and on that I still disagree as the sources presented by the keeps were dismissed out of hand on the basis of a broad "no they don't" by the deletes - giving no more analysis of the sources than the keeps did. Had these sources not been critical, or had the deletes done more analysis as you have tried to do at the review then perhaps a delete might have been warranted but they were not an no-consensus was the outcome that should have been the closing decision. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I didn't participate in the discussion, and I don't know much about the topic itself, but to me this seems like a close that was well within the discretion of the closer to make. Overall, this seems like a pretty partisan discussion, with no one giving anyone else they disagree with the benefit of the doubt. I don't agree with a lot of what those in favour of deletion have said or how they have said it, but I do think the keep arguments were far weaker and as I said I think the closer was justified in closing this as was done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC I really haven't figured out if I think we should or shouldn't have such articles, but there is no consensus in that discussion and I found the deletion arguments weaker than the keep arguments. Non-notable intersection seems unlikely given that we have quality sources that describe the intersection. That exactly who is Jewish can lead to problems is true, but I don't think the inclusion criteria for the list is so fuzzy as to make the list meaningless. That said, this also fell short of being a clear keep as there are issues here. So... Hobit (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-notable intersection seems unlikely given that we have quality sources that describe the intersection.

Where are these "quality sources that describe the intersection"? Scroll up and look through the provided Google Book links and show me just one book that has more than a handful of sentences academically discussing the overreaching cultural, biologically, psychological, or whatever-have-you connection between the subject of "People who are described as Jewish" and "People who are actors." ...not Yiddish theatre, not Jewish film characters, not Jewish-based cinema, not conspiracy theories about Jews running Hollywood, not antisemitism in Germany, and not antisemitism in Russia. I want to see where the secondary source information is for Jewish Acting (not actors acting Jewish but Jewish Acting) in the same way as I can show you this source for this article. Bulldog123 10:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus - Having followed this discussion for the past week, and seen the result of recent similar AfDs (here and here, for example), there is clearly no consensus to delete articles of this kind, or this article in particular. I think the perception that there is a strong wish to delete is largely illusory, manufactured through the deletion enthusiasm of Bulldog123 and the weakness of the Keep arguments at the original discussion. Now that a wider section of the Wikipedia has had time to consider the matter and contribute, it seems clear that if an identical article were created today and immediately taken to AfD it would be not be deleted, and therefore the AfD closure should be overturned to "no consensus". - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• AfDs with under 13 votes, where the majority of participants are the same batch of roaming partisan delete and keep voters... do not automatically set community consensus precedent. However, if that's the way you view things, I might point out that you neglected to mention these recent related-AfDs ([11], [12], [13]) which closed in the opposite way. Or related debates that actually ended with overall consensus ([14], [15]). So... what you're doing is a lot of cherry-picking. I'd also like to point out there's no negative connotation to "deletion enthusiasm" anymore than there is with the "keep enthusiasm" exhibited by Stuart.Jamison... and it's interesting you call out my name in particular. Furthermore, that you readily admit weakness of the Keep arguments at the original discussion means you should be endorsing the close at this DR. This isn't supposed to be AfD Round 2 - even though all these overturn arguments are making it like that. Bulldog123 10:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Rationales admin cited for deletion were sound, and decision to delete was not clear error. Large-scale relitigation of the AFD here is amusing given the significant canvassing issues that colored the original AFD. Townlake (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extrasolar Dwarf Planet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

"You listen here! I have made articles about extrasolar dwarf planets on Wikipedia and I have not cared about the name. I had been told that there is a problem with Exodwarf Planet as a name so fine Extrasolar Dwarf Planet is the same idea. Frankly while Exodwarf is not a real word. Exodwarf planet is! I was told that Extrasolar Dwarf Planet is acceptable and peer reviewed, a real word. You have expanded Wikipedia rules beyond what they are here. You are hereby challenged."[16]

• Endorse- I don't think the debate could have been closed any other way, and reposting the exact same article under a slightly different name doesn't help. The article was deleted because it liked to the creator's blog and user comments on other sites in order to promote a neologism. Under the new name it is arguably no longer a neologism but the extremely poor sourcing is still an issue. Reyk _YO! 07:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Seems like the proper close. FWIW if you want something undeleted its best not to disparge the deleting admin. This nomination is exactly how not to get a deletion overturned. ThemFromSpace 08:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Don't Endorse Let's get something straight here. There is no neologism. There is only promotion of the topic, the concept. By now the word exodwarf planet/extrasolar dwarf planet is a real word. Saying exodwarf by itself without adding the words dwarf planet is not a real word at least not yet and I do not care what they call an extra/exo/(solar)/dwarf (planet). I have never cared. It is the concept that is important to me. As for supposedly disparaging the deleting commitee I wasn't being insulting. The Spanish Inquisition was not meant. It is however frustrating when you are being judged without the taking into account on the part of at least some of the judges the evidence and arguments you give on your own behalf. Also rather than be focused on the article you concentrate on the motivation. Who brings an article they don't care about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraelasper (talk • contribs) 12:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• We have featured articles on both Dwarf planet and Extrasolar planet. Only one (1) extrasolar dwarf planet is known to exist (PSR B1257+12 A which has its own article), so this material could only be about extrasolar dwarf planets as a group. I don't think we need any coverage of the group until some others are found.—S Marshall T/C 13:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • are you saying you think it a real possibility that there is only one such, & that we fortunately happen to have already found it? DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rather imagine that there are more! I'm actually fairly interested in the subject. (I wrote, and maintain, the not entirely unrelated article on HIP 56948.) It's just that there isn't anything factual to say about extrasolar dwarf planets that isn't already covered in dwarf planet, extrasolar planet or PSR B1257+12 A. Such content could only be speculative and I don't believe there's enough speculation in reliable sources to justify a separate article on extrasolar dwarf planets as a group.—S Marshall T/C 09:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I did at User talk:James McBride#Planet of the dwarfs, I call your attention to This and this. Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Deletion discussion read correctly, no wrongdoing noted. The virtual slapping of Spartaz with a gauntlet ("You are hereby challenged" ? Are you the Black Knight ?) was fairly lulzy though. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This group of people seem to think "Extrasolar Dwarf Planet" it is a word [17], second from the last paragraph. Arguing with them about it might not be wise. Warrior777--Warrior777 14:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC) (I'm going to sign this post but it doesn't seem to be functioning correctly)[reply]
  • It's a phrase. If it was a word, we could send it to wiktionary. What it isn't is a viable separate article.—S Marshall T/C 00:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reminds me of the time someone posted cert. granted sub nom. as an "article", when it's two separate legal terms that happened to be in a string in a particular instance, and the terms don't get any different or additional meaning by their combination. Next will be "distant planet", "large asteroid", and "fuzzy puppy", because hey, those are "words" in use, huh? postdlf (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Summary Comment - In February 2009, Bernard Asper "invented the slowly catching on word exodwarf and wrote an article about planet definition on my blog that I am fixing to allow comments on. ... I came up with the word because the IAU reserves the term dwarf planet for our solar system and yet they mixed everybody up by their debating that some have been using the term for outside the solar system as well. So if the word dwarf planet can't be officially used for outside our solar system I decided to invent a new term for such dwarf planets, namely Exodwarf Planets or exodwarfs for cool shortness."[18] AfD Exodwarf planet 25 November 2010 resulted in deleting the Exodwarf planet article. The topic was renamed Extrasolar Dwarf Planet and reposted. Extrasolar Dwarf Planet was wp:CSD G4 speedy deleted on 6 December 2010. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy deletion - Initially using Bernard Asper's coined term "Exodwarf" to name the article dominated the AfD delete discussion as most delete position rightfully didn't like using Wikipedia to promote a personal agenda (promoting Bernard Asper's coined term "Exodwarf"). In view of that AfD, renaming the article with "Extrasolar" is substantial new information that at least overcomes a G4 speedy deletion. Extrasolar is a term that has wide usage within Wikipedia.[19]. The topic deserves consensus evaluation without the blinding promotion provided by the term exodwarf. Yisraelasper, as an alternate approach, you might first try to add the content to a new subsection of extrasolar planet entitled "Extrasolar dwarf planet" and then develop a WP:SPINOUT article if enough info for a stand alone article is developed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]