Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Jewish American entertainers

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

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

Speedy close Violation WP:POINT "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, enforcing it consistently... Such tactics are highly disruptive and can lead to a block (possibly indefinite) or ban. Wikipedia is not perfectly consistent, and its rules are not a code of law. Issues with rules or practices should be addressed through plain discussion, not through irony or making a game of it." There is no serious suggestion here that WP editors should debate the article mentioned, the nominator is merely trying to make a point about a different AfD he does not like. betsythedevine (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC) As Jayiq asserts that this is a sincere nomination, I am redacting what was my original belief, that he created it to make a WP:POINT.betsythedevine (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  —Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Comment: Not that I disagree with this nomination but... aren't we cherry-picking here? These pages are not unlike the Nobel Prize list at all. You can probably find more external reading about Jewish American entertainers than Jewish Nobel Prize laureates by a mile. I don't understand why you're using it as an example of a "good list" when all these lists have the same inherent problem -- they synthesize relationships where there are none. It's passive original research. Unless everybody on this list is somehow related to Yiddish theatre or Jewish comedy... their Judaism has no bearing on their careers as entertainers (though conspiracy theorists will have us believe otherwise). Simply because "Look Who's Jewish!" cites somebody as a Jew, doesn't mean we are encyclopedically BOUND to report that, and that applies equally to the Nobel Prize list. Bull dog123  02:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused; if this list is "not unlike the Nobel Prize list at all", then why aren't you !voting to delete here, but are there? Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am here, but I'm just stressing that I don't agree with your particular nomination rationale for this one. A "lack of secondary sources" is not the problem if this list were actually about Jewish forms of entertainment (i.e., Yiddish theatre). I say delete for the reasons listed above, and because this list (as well as List of Jewish actors) ends up being little more than a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Bull dog123  02:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to have to say that that's utter nonsense. This AfD is in perfectly good faith, about an article that obviously discusses a non-notable intersection. And I notice that you didn't make the same claim when Articles for deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates was also discussed on the other AfD page, and subsequently nominated for deletion. Please redact your untrue comment, discuss whether you think List of Jewish American entertainers should exist, and please act with more personal consistency in the future. Jayjg (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in this nomination pro or con. From my limited knowledge, religious intolerance once segregated Jewish from "mainstream" entertainers--so being Jewish could well have impacted the entertainment careers of many. I would hope that the article uses some sensible rule about who is Jewish and who is not. I would hope the article shows respect for the wishes of living people at least by making self-identification a test for whether someone is Jewish. But this article is far outside my interests and experience. betsythedevine (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's odd how you have such a detailed knowledge of, interest in, and vehement opinions about Jewish Nobel Prize winners, but none whatsoever about Jewish American entertainers. One would have thought your lengthy assertions about policy regarding the Jewish Nobel Prize winner list, particularly in relation to BLP, would be equally of concern to you here. Isn't everyone deserving of the same BLP protection? These continuing inconsistencies are troubling. Jayjg (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's odd how you consider my invocation of policy about WP:POINT as a personal attack, but don't consider it a personal attack to throw around speculative comments about my motivation and the shocking inconsistency that I fail to edit many articles that might have BLP issues. You can see from my contribution list that I often edit articles of scientists, rarely those of entertainers. My interest in List of Jewish Nobel laureates originated in the repeated efforts by some to use it to tag Andre Geim as unmodifiedly "Jewish." To clear up another matter that seems to trouble you, I remembered reading a Feynman statement that seemed apropos and was gratified to find it today as the first google hit for "Feynman Judaism." betsythedevine (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've neither made any comments about your motivation, nor claimed that it is a "schocking inconsistency that [you] fail to edit many articles that might have BLP issues". I've also never felt nor expressed any "trouble" about the "matter" of Feynman's statement. I read your comments with increasing dismay, because it almost seems as if you've just skimmed my comments, picking out individual words, without actually trying to understand what I've actually written. Falsely claiming I made this nomination as a WP:POINT is a violation of three policies, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL. For what I'm really hoping is the last time, please redact that claim. Jayjg (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. These lists are a headache. This one is huge, badly organised, dozens or even hundreds of entries are unreferenced ... and which reliable source would compile a list along those principles? Where is the notability of this list concept; how many lists like this exist out there in published sources? It's cruft. -- JN 466  12:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete violates BLPCAT, EGRS, and per Jayjg.--Therexbanner (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the nominator's arguments. This is yet another dreadful list that should not exist - even if it could somehow be salvaged in part (and I don't think it can), we'd have to have people monitoring it all the time or admit that we can't enforce our BLP policy, let alont NOR, etc. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep If this were a list of red-linked non-notables, I might agree with the nominator. But the shear number of blue-links would seem indicative of this list being A) properly sourced and sourcable and B) specifically encouraged by the caveats at WP:LIST. Not wishing to list such notables for our reader's easy navigation does not improve the encyclopedia. And no, I am not Jewish.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nominator. Would be more viable if there were an independent article on the topic. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete long and ungainly list that's just as non-notable an intersection as List of Jewish actors. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel the wind on this one. Is there a category "Jewish-American entertainers" ?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to single out Jewish notables in this recent spat of various list deletions. Per established precedent for such lists of notable individuals, as clarified in WP:SAL, WP:LSC, WP:LISTNAME, WP:SALAT, and WP:LISTPEOPLE, this list is specifically per applicable policies and guidelines and serves the project and its readers.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, with the exception that I do think that the Nobel Laureates list ought to be deleted as well and see no difference between the two lists. I'm not sure why an ongoing different AfD is mentioned in this one.Griswaldo (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Non-trivial intersection and perfectly allowable under WP:SALAT. What on earth is happening here?  Did everyone drink the kool-aid?  The criteria for allowable lists are immensely broad, and this one has a clearly defined scope and addresses an area of significant academic interest, namely the role of people of Jewish extraction in the American entertainment industry.  - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Very strong Keep There are sufficient sources both for individuals   and for the general concept. In addition to the ones in the article, there is Jews and American popular culture. / Vol. 1, Movies, radio, and television and Jews and American popular culture. / Vol. 2, Music, theater, popular art, and literature both by  Paul Buhle; (Praeger, 2006.), from a a major social science publisher,  There are varying definitions of Jewishness , and the article should therefore being inclusive of sll of them, either self identification, or multiple RSs, not all of which can be Jewish.  But that is the reason why the can be a list of notabler entertainers who are jewish--either by religion, ethnicitity, on otherwise, according to their own self-definition  or  the definitions of other reliable sources . It is every bit as justifiable a list as List of French entertainers or List of French canadian entertainers--two articles that seem to be missing. .   The proof of importance othe intersection is that books are written about it. (I think binary intersections for ethnicities and professions do not need proof-- List of Jewish entertainers no more needs proof than List of American Entertainers, but this is a triple intersextion, and we have to show its distinction in the real world.  I find it exceedingly strange that we do not have these articles either. there is a great reluctance here to  use ethic or national categories for people--and I am at a loss to account for it. Is this a sort of hyper-political correctness, which hopes that all such distinctions should not be talked about, in the presumed hope they will disappear. That's a very narrow view of the world, and, I would say, a biased one. Ethnic and national differences are a very real part of the world and a matter in which we can all take considerable satisfaction, not something we need be ashamed of or avoid. This sort of list is a traditional component of encyclopedias , and we would look very strange without them. I see two editors above arguing about which ethnic group deserves and article here and which does not, One wants Chinese but not Jewish, one just the opposite. These are expressions not of reasoned positions, but of conscious or unconscious bias . This is the most multicultural of all projects,and we should have learnt by now to rise above this sort of old-fadhioned quarrel, and to include every such combination of which there are sufficient people and decent sources. ~comment by:DGG (talk | contribs) 04:07, November 30, 2010
 * Keep, per previous user. JackJud (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   converse 17:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR, criteria #6, which states that: "Wikipedia articles are not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." This article is an almost exact fit for "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y", where religious group X = American Jews and organization Y = entertainers. This is not the same as List of French entertainers, because that is a list organized by nationality, not religion.  Judaism is not a nationality.  Snotty Wong   converse 17:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As DGG pointed out today in reply to your parallel comment elsewhere, "as usual, if they have a Wikipedia article, including them isn't a violation of NOT DIR. A violation would be including every such actor, whether or not notable."--Epeefleche (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, except that there is no article on Judaism and entertainment in America or Jewish American entertainment, so your argument is moot. Simply having an article on Jews and Judaism doesn't give you license to create any article that is remotely related to Judaism, like List of Jewish Yugoslavian politicians.  I have replied to DGG's comments on the original page, but I will not repost my response here.  Snotty Wong   squeal 22:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's mostly covered in in Secular Jewish culture though that article could do with some extension on influences on and from western culture. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia should not be placing people into subjective and potentially contentious ethnic or religious categories. Doing so is against the spirit of WP:BLPCAT. NickCT (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you then be supportive of deleting, say: List of Palestinians, List of Palestinian-Americans, List of Muslim scientists, List of Muslim mathematicians, List of Muslim astronomers, List of Muslim writers and poets, List of Muslim actors, Muslim doctors, List of American Muslims, List of Shi'a Muslims, List of converts to Islam, List of Arab scientists and scholars, List of Arab Americans, List of Arab Canadians, and List of Arab American writers?--Epeefleche (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. Snotty Wong   verbalize 18:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument".  Also, I am particularly interested in Nick's view.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Broccoli (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment--Jews as an ethnicity and nation. The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.

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

--Epeefleche (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per above keeps, and my above comment.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Israel is a country. Judaism is a religion.  Judaism is not a country.  There is no country called Judaism on the map.  You cannot obtain citizenship in the country of Judaism.  There may have been a Jewish nation 2,000 years ago, but there isn't one today.  This is why we don't have a List of Czechoslovakian entertainers, because Czechoslovakia no longer exists.  The Jewish diaspora is not a sovereign nation with a government.  It is a way of describing Jews who live outside of Israel.  Let's not get bogged down with semantics.  List of French entertainers is not the same as List of Jewish American entertainers.  Snotty Wong   yak 18:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if you want to argue that there is a "Jewish nation", there is certainly not a "Jewish American" nation, which is what would have to exist in order for your argument to be relevant to the discussion about this particular article. Snotty Wong   spill the beans 18:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It is perfectly standard to have such intersections -- no reasearch is needed; see even some of the lists reflected earlier on this page.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Anybody who has been canvassed by Epeefleche to participate in this AfD should come forward to quell suspicion. Bull dog123 02:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs a lot of work particularly in sourcing and I don't see the point of duplicating the work of List of Jewish Actors it would make more sense to add a nationality column to that article and hatnote it from here. Comedians and Singer/Songwriters could be forked into their own article and similarly hatnoted. Per Epeefleche and JackJud DGG, Jewish cultural subjects behave a lot more like national cultural subjects rather than comparative religious or ethnic subjects, we allow national groupings for cultural groupings so Jewish grouping should be Equally acceptable. per my references on the Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors most media/Jewish cultural intersections are notable for their connection with Jewish culture and worth having an article listing. Jewish culture acts as a head article though it may need some work it's self. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG...Modernist (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN There's reasonable evidence to suggest that User:Epeefleche is participating in an email-based WP:CANVASSing campaign, targeting users likely to !vote keep on this AfD (and other recent Jewish AfDs). See the following for evidence: IP address belongs to User:DustFormsWords - he forgot to sign in Note that User:Epeefleche has a long history of WP:CANVASSing keep-friendly individuals to participate in Jews CfDs/AfDs. Here are diffs from one of Epee's canvassing campaigns a few years ago:                    . He now chooses to do this more surreptitiously by email.
 * he asked me on my user talk p., as anyone can see.  I think I am taking a different and much stronger position than he probably expected.   I am doing so not in response to him, but to what I think of the arguments and pointyness of those trying to delete a large group of encyclopedic content. This accusation seems a red herring--I do not think any oif the people listed above have commented here. The people who have commented here are noted mainly for their participation in topics about Judaism, or about lists, taking various positions, just as is desirable at a discussion.     DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I heard from him on my talk page and I had already weighed in here - frankly I was a little annoyed to see his message this am...Modernist (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Epeefleche has a long history of canvassing attempts. He targeted you specifically because he knew your position on these types of AfDs. Whether you would have found this AfD with or without his help is irrelevant. The point is... he did canvass you in bad faith - and there's a strong likelihood he canvassed others (especially long-dormant editors who seem to be popping up and !voting). Bull dog123  04:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I've not canvassed. Your uncivil accusations are a violation of wp:agf and wp:civil.  And, of course, it is noteworthy that the only editors other than me to have commented at all the Jewish-list-AfDs are you, Snotty, and Jayjg--with 17 delete !votes and 1 keep !vote among the three of you.  And of course, when it comes to notifying delete !voters of these AfDs, apparently Bull has been active -- somewhat curiously, precisely the sort of activity he accuses me of.  But I'll be happy to leave all editors editing/who edited related AfDs a note about related on-going AfDs so that that is clear.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And Bulldog123, you'd better re-read WP:CANVAS. Over at Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates you wrote "User DGG is an example of active canvassing. User:DGG is notorious for being an inclusionist." Epeefleche's question to that editor was appropriate in its being limited, nueutral, non-partisan, and open... no matter how you personally might wish to declare it.  But yes, DGG is certainly "notorious" alright... but for being respected, reasonable, and neutral... even if seen as inclusionist.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Epeefleche, I think Bulldog 123 behavior speak volumes for itself-from my point of view it's not only uncivil or matter of not assuming good faith, it also consist personal attack. --Gilisa (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: - Epeefleche actually notified 65 editors on their talk pages about all of these jewish-list-related AfD's. I have posted a notice on his talk page asking for an explanation. This AfD is hopelessly tainted (as are all of the other ones), and should be automatically relisted at a later date in the hopes that an unbiased consensus can be determined. <span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#FEF7E3;color=#648113">Snotty Wong   verbalize 18:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: A neutral notification sent out for balance only after the notice and accusation by Bulldog123 had been placed in all those same related discussions... and only to those who had opined in other related "List of Jewish" discussions. It is clear that for the sake of neutrality the notice was not "targeted" to any one mindset, nor was it accusatory or inflamatory, but was sent to editors equally, no matter their likelyness to !vote delete or keep.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the list is at over 230k long. This is an obvious case of very poorly defined scope of an article. Even ignoring the problems with correctly identifying each entry as having Jewish ethnicity, then with listing the entries where not just the grandfather was Jewish (but also the person listed actively cares and/or is aware of his ancestry), there would still be the problem of having a 1000+ entries long, essentially infinite list. Nergaal (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In the normal course, Wikipedia has an approach for addressing the issue of long pages, outlined in Article size, which is to split the article into two or more smaller pages.  Page size issues are not generally fixed by deleting the page.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Racial and Religious categories are A Bad Thing. After seeing disputes and arguments over whether certain chess players really are Jewish or not (especially when said players don't make a big deal of their religion or ethnicity themselves), I've come to the conclusion that racial and religious categories (like "Jewish chess players") are A Bad Thing. And the same goes for ethnic categories. For the purposes of Wikipedia, I don't care what race or religion a person is(*), unless it directly relates to their field (a Jewish theologians category, for instance, is quite appropriate). The categories seem to only exist for racial and religious point scoring ("See how many eminent people in field X belong to my race/religion!") - Just something to think about. --Confession0791 talk 10:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Entertainment does not have a separate category for Jewish people and who should be considered Jewish is unclear. TFD (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't believe most of the reasons counted for why deleting such categories is more than POV. I do however suggest not to list in this categories people of partial Jewish ancestry in order to avoid disputes-though the criteria is self identification. I also think there is problem of listing in this category people who are not Jewish by the Jewish law.--Gilisa (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Let me share something from AussieLegend's user page:


 * Well, you used the magic words "racial" and "religious" and of-course added "categories" and now surely it's bad thing. Well, I think generalizations like you did are bad thing, I think it's somewhat and without intention demagogic and avoid any real and in depth argument. You are right that there are those who say "well there are more people in certain category of ethnicity  X than of  ethnicity Y. But the purpose of the categories as I see it is not to tell who have more. It's informative categories after all, like categories of people from certain city. Also, please keep in mind that more than 90% of the ethnic categories get to AfD regard Jew. Not English, Germans or anything else-Jews almost only, and that's really strange and bad thing.--Gilisa (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, please keep in mind that more than 90% of the ethnic categories get to AfD regard Jew. Not English, Germans or anything else-Jews almost only, and that's really strange and bad thing. That's because 90% of Jewish lists on wikipedia get transformed into POV-pushing ethnic-pride-and-Jewish-cultural-promotion pages by over-zealous users. Also because Jewish lists appear to be the only ones that exist: List of German American entertainers, List of English American entertainers  Bull dog123  08:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have concrete evidence of this? --Confession0791 talk 21:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Listing people by nation gives thousands of results in some cases. Not sure why people feel the need to put themselves or others into any such categories at all, but it is covered in books and the news media, so I say Keep.  D r e a m Focus  15:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, this functions both as a navigational sublist (i.e., index) of notable Jewish Americans by occupation, and also furthers the topic of Jewish Americans in American culture; their distinct contributions have been recognized at length (see, e.g., DGG's comment above for sources), so the claim that this is an "unencyclopedic cross-categorization" is unfounded and has been rebutted. That a prose article has not yet been written is irrelevant, both because it could be and because it doesn't have to be for the list to be permissible; instead the list could be viewed as an aid to writing such an article.  So I see no valid reason to delete this at all.  postdlf (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Richard Feynman and both the impossibility and unimportance of defining who is and isn't Jewish.-- K orr u ski Talk 14:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: the Feynman red herring, and Bobby Fischer.  I believe the entire Feynman discussion is a red herring.  Bobby Fischer renounced his American citizenship.  He is listed and categorized as an American on Wikipedia.  As well he should be under wiki guidelines, because at one point he was American.  We don't in knee-jerk fashion say to ourselves: "Gosh, Fischer would if he were alive be upset to be called American -- let's therefore delete all American lists from Wikipedia!  That is tantamount to some of what has been suggested on this page.  The way we handle such issues is on a case-by-case, individual fashion.  We don't kill the patient to stop the pain of it's hangnail.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I can actually buy the idea of a list of Jewish entertainers, as that has often been discussed. But a triple intersection of religion/ethnicity, nationality and occupation?  That might well be pushing it too far. Resolute 15:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It would arguably be indiscriminate if it lumped together all Jewish entertainers from all cultures and countries, juxtaposing a Jewish American comedian with a French Jewish actor or whatever. But Jewish Americans are a distinctive cultural group, and their contributions to the American entertainment industry (and the relevance of those contributions to the Jewish American experience) are well recognized.  postdlf (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * !Vote.
 * "List of African Americans" between quotes on Wikipedia search finds 281 articles. 281
 * "List of Jewish" between quotes on Wikipedia search, shows 431 results.
 * "List of white" shows results, but the only two related to people are List of Africans of European ancestry and List of white nationalist organizations.
 * "List of Arabs" shows 426.
 * Note, they also have awards ceremonies just for various ethnic groups, and these are considered notable awards, and covered in the mainstream media even.  D r e a m Focus  15:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep (and WP:SPLIT), per WP:GNG which states that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list, and per DGG, who has shown that this topic has received said coverage. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I fail to see how a list of entertainers can be regarded a BLP violation. Yes, it is sourced. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment How about a List of Protestant Mongolian construction workers lol. See my point? --Confession0791 talk 21:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We have large Category:American Jews, but we do not have Category:Mongolian Protestants, and for a good reason.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, to give a more reasonable example, List of Swedish American entertainers (with people like Steven Soderbergh. Bull dog123  00:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If they had notable awards for that, and the news media covered it, then that'd be fine. Remember, articles exist on subjects covered by the media or which people agree are notable.  You only need one of those, not both.   D r e a m Focus  22:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment -- WP:ListPeople; application to nationality/ethnicity; 556 references. As WP:LISTPEOPLE indicates with regard to "nationality/ethnicity" -- "List of Albanians includes persons who are famous in any category and who belong to Albania. The criteria for identifying as an Albanian does not solely depend upon the official citizenship laws of that country – a person could be related to the place by birth, residency, parentage, or by his or her personal admission, considers himself or herself to be an Albanian at heart."

I would also note that this article has an astonishing 556 references. It is one of the best-sourced lists we have at the Project, both in number of references and in terms of references demonstrating amply the focus of RSs on this intersection, and consequently its inherent notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Deleting a list like this would leave us with two extremely horrible options that I see: 1) Listing all of these in what would then be an overly long List_of_Jewish_Americans or 2) Deleting List_of_Jewish_Americans. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh... we don't need to list them anywhere. If their Judaism is known, they will simply have a category. If their Judaism has a bearing on their careers, then they will have a list. What point am I missing here? Bull dog123  08:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You will find many of the points you seem to be missing within the guideline Categories, lists, and navigation templates. "Wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, lists (including embedded lists, like lists included in See also sections), and navigation templates (of which article series boxes are one type). The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages ... these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. ... Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted just because they overlap. ... arguing that a Category or List is duplicative of the other in a deletion debate is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your sole argument for retention of this list is "Do it because it doesn't say we can't." The list has been around for over three years with nobody there to clean-up or change it. That's really all I need to point out. Bull dog123  18:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope I can speak for all of the many hundreds of editors of this list over the past six years when I wish you all the very best in your post-Wikipedia endeavors now that you have finally pointed out all that you really need to point out. Perhaps you will find other uses for your great talent of putting falsehoods in boldface. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The list is also interesting and informative. Davshul (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per arguments of nominator, Jayjg. Yworo (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note to closing administrator! The AFD stats thing at the top of the AFD isn't working right. Some people are listed as both Delete and Keep, even though they only say keep in the article.  I see two names that stand out right away.  No way anyone is going to read through all of this anyway, so I assume the AFD stats at the top will be used to judge consensus.   D r e a m Focus  18:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't see any point repeating myself, even if this nomination appears to be a cut-and-paste from a related nomination of Jewish actors. But in short, this is notable subject in its own right because of the relationship between Judaism and the American entertainment industry, and entertainment and Jewish culture.  There are plenty of sources for that, including books on the subject.  So it is hardly a meaningless or random intersection.  - Wikidemon (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, a reasonably narrow and notable topic, well suited for a list treatment. Nsk92 (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that this "semi-retired user" had just recently been introduced to this AfD by User:Epeefleche's massive WP:CANVASSing campaign:  Bull dog123  19:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you check my contrib record, you'll see that I have been fairly actively editing in the last several months - but even if I had not, what's wrong with being semi-retired anyway? Yes, Epeefleche left a message at my talk page, which I did think was a case of canvassing and I wish he hadn't done that. But with the amount of drama at ANI surrounding Epeefleche's block, it would have been hard not to notice this topic anyway. Plus, as Stuart Jamieson noted below, even before Epeefleche's misguided canvassing campaign started, I had already participated in the Jewish Nobel Laureates AfD so this bru-ha-ha was already on my radar screen. By the way, just earlier today, I !voted "delete" in Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors, so I am not beholden to any single position on the matters of these lists AfDs. I have been on Wikipedia for quite a while, wrote quite a few articles and have more than four times as many total edits than you. I should think that my opinion counts here as much as anyone else's. Nsk92 (talk)
 * Please take any further comments about Epeefleche's messages to ANI or start a RFC/U. "Semi-Retired" is not retired Nsk92 had already !voted on Jewish Nobel Laureates before Epeefleche sent his messages and also !voted on chinese nobel laureates mentioned there (as are actors and entertainers) and not in Epeefleche's message. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Flagrantly canvassed users should be pointed out. Just because he visited the Nobel Prize list, doesn't mean he'd visit this list, Stuart. Not saying your opinion isn't valid either, Nsk, but your reason for deleting Jewish actors (QUOTE: too broad in scope, better suited to be treated as a category rather than a list. - Nsk92 ) is completely incongruoent with your reason for keeping this list. This list is even more broad and actually CONTAINS a huge swatch of Jewish actors. Basically, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever -- which should be pointed out too -- as it appears disingenuous.  Bull dog123  07:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - "Entertainer" is simply far too broad and generic a label IMO. We're pretty much in a List of things territory here. Tarc (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This group of people have great notability. For example, see the Encyclopedia of American Jewish History which has dozens of pages in its chapter on American Jews in Entertainment and Popular Culture.  This contains numerous sub-sections such as American Jewish Women Entertainers, American Jews and Science Fiction, American Jewish Comedians, &c.  The contention that such categories are improper and lacking in notability is thus shown to be false. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing in accordance with our editing policy and so there is no case for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So let's take a few quotes from your sources... shall we? From the latter, we have material like: "...George Jessel retained a Jewish persona on radio, they were less successful than those like Jack Benny, who did not. Jessel spoke rapidly in a recognizably Jewish accent and talked about urban subjects. Despite his table marriage to a Jew and his ongoing relationship with the Jewish community, Benny managed to avoid being widely perceived as Jewish by carefully eschewing Jewish accents or jokes..." and "...Chaplin, was not, however, the first actor to portray Hitler on film. That honor belongs to Moe Howard of the Three Stooges. The three Jewish comedians who made up the Stooges starred in three anti-Nazi films, beginning with You Nazty Spy in 1940. The Stooges smuggled Yiddish into their films..." Please explain what that has to do with Scarlett Johansson, David Blaine, Katie Couric, and the band Anthrax (band). Bull dog123  00:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - The claim that Jews dominate Hollywood is a notable conspiracy theory. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll let that one speak for itself. Bull dog123  07:30, 4 December 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.