Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Forward 50


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was  Delete all. Jayjg (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

2006 Forward 50

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There is no such notion or concept among Jews or in Judaism as to who the top 10 or top 50 or top 100 Jews are at any given time, so this is a very shallow newspaper gimmick, almost a total joke, what Wikipedia would classify as Listcruft. These list/s are derived from a small minor newspaper (it used to publish in Yiddish but went defunct, was bought out, now publishes in English) that pushes its own POV view creating many new "red links" in these lists for people who would not qualify for their own WP:BIO as matters stand. Violation/s of WP:NOTDIRECTORY as well as WP:NOTADVERTISING. The creator of these articles/lists is using them as a springboard for setting artificial POV "criteria" for who are the world's "most influential Jews" (see the discussions at Talk:Most influential Jews), when it's just the work of one small near-defunct paper that is on life-support from philanthropic support. These articles/lists could just as easily have been set up as External links in the main The Forward article that would be more than sufficient. Otherwise it would be ridiculous for Wikipedia to have articles on "The top anything" derived from relatively minor POV news sources, especially in a Judaic context where they make no sense, indeed many are highly disputable, and are highly POV. Whatever little general information other than names, is salvageable, should be incorporated in the main The Forward article. IZAK (talk) 08:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The following directly related articles/lists are also nominated for deletion for the above reasons IZAK (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC):


 * Delete All for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 08:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  IZAK (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  IZAK (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete All per nom and per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Yoninah (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all but with the caveat that I wish the nominator had avoided the gratuitous insults to The Forward in the nomination ("small minor newspaper", "small near-defunct newspaper that is on life support"). The Forward has been around over 100 years and was the home publication for a winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature. Admittedly, that doesn't mean we should reprint their "Forward 50" here, given the apparent of independent sources showing external attention to the list. If Entertainment Weekly or VH1 published a list of the top 50 of anything, and the list itself was non-notable, would that be a reason to insult that magazine or that network? No, it would just be a reason not to reprint the list here in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Metropolitan90: The Forward of yesteryear, was published in Yiddish and that was a base not just for Isaac Bashevis Singer but for many other well-known Yiddish writers and luminaries is long gone, just as the demands for that kind of secular Yiddish culture has all but disappeared except in a few rare academic circles and among a few very old secular Jews. The Yiddish Forvaarts (Yiddish name for The Forward) was actually shut down and became defunct but was bought out by investor and philanthropist Michael Steinhardt and was re-launched as a relatively small English paper with no real resemblance to its Yiddish namesake that was the mouthpiece of the working class Jewish Yiddish secular socialist, Bundist and communist followers. While the new The Forward is an avaunt guard paper supported by a capitalist financial wizard hedge fund manager, and were it not for his support The Foward would not exist. This was all reported in the media, see "PROFITS & PASSIONS:...Steinhardt had invested in the English Forward..."; "The Forward Is Backward: New York's Unclassifiable Jewish Weekly...It's a story we would expect to come out of Moscow: A Jewish journal, founded in 1897, which had busts of Marx and Engels on its building facade, gets taken over by an eccentric millionaire fond of his pet emu, and now it's in favor of Israel and the CIA. But the ex-socialist paper is New York's Yiddish-language Forverts, and Michael Steinhardt, half-owner of the English-language Forward, is a stockbroker, worth $300 million." (Read the rest, it's fascinating and informative.); Steinhardt also uses and manipulates it to promote himself, and presumably those whom he wishes to co-promote via his paper via these kinds of Forward "top 50" lists, see "Assessing the Forward 50...The List: Who Made It and Who Did Not ...Six philanthropists made the cut...Lynn Schusterman...Michael Steinhardt..."; and this report: "IN THE NEWS: Steinhardt...The Forward, a feisty, New York-based weekly Jewish newspaper, has announced tentative plans to make its English-language edition a daily paper by 1997 - the 100th anniversary of its founding as a Yiddish publication by Jewish labor movement activists.Fueling the plan is a multimillion-dollar investment in the paper by Michael H. Steinhardt, a highly successful Wall Street money manager and financier.Steinhardt is putting $4 million into the venture, according to The New York Times." It's almost as if The Forward has become Steinhardt's mouthpiece and newsletter (not a feisty pro-socialist independent paper that it once was in its original Yiddish incarnation) to the affluent secular Jewish world that he wishes to communicate with and who probably pay no heed to it in any case since they would prefer to read the NYT or Google news. If you have other information it would be great to deepen this AfD. IZAK (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't find any evidence that The Forward's Yiddish edition ever was shut down and became defunct. They apparently dropped from daily to weekly publication in Yiddish in the 1980s, but that's not the same thing. I admit that this is a tangential issue to this AfD, and the real question is whether other publications take note of the publication of the annual Forward 50, which would be a sign of notability for the list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The paper was as dead as its parent corporation when they sold off its assets, and had not Steinhardt arrived as the white knight to buy the newspaper's name in the 1990s the paper would have been dead and buried because the parent corporation sold off all its assets like its once popular WEVD multicultural radio station ("the station that speaks your language") and its Forwards building in Manhattan (now converted into condos). It was up for grabs with a teeny circulation down to about 5,000 from hovering at the 100,000-200,000 mark at its peek. So yeah, you could say it came back from the dead, but only just and barely recognizable as its old self (because it wasn't!) At any rate, this gimmick of "top 50 Jews" was just one ruse to try resuscitate a paper whose time had come and gone. IZAK (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Izak, this is a self-published list meant for advertising. Yossiea (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Absolutely. --ChosidFrumBirth (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This list is just a newspaper gimmick, as IZAK says.  It's not different than any other arbitrary celebrity list.  Dfass (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)—
 * Strong delete Vancarlimospacecraft, WP:WING, opinion, OR, not notable, etc. etc. etc. What next, top 25 labradoodles according to the national enquirer? Avi (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Avi. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.