Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American fraudsters


 * 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 per either or both of WP:SNOW and WP:G10 -- Y not? 17:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Jewish American fraudsters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive821. Previously CSD'd as G10 attack page. GregJackP  Boomer!   14:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * CommentWell if it only consists of those for whom we have articles.? On the other hand, do we have other ethnic-based lists like this? Why would anyone go looking? Why not List of American Fraudsters. I find this distasteful, and telling me we have similar lists like it does not change that. Maybe we should include them in this AfD. Dloh  cierekim  14:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No rationalle given for deletion. Similar pro-Jewish lists exist. Appears to be unalloyed bias. MelangePasty (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  14:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  14:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not sure editors from WP Judaism can be considered neutral. Why not inform WP Islam and WP Shinto? Surely WP Atheism would be the most neutral party? Or even WP Haberdashery? Surely everything except the input of WP Judaism is helpful here. MelangePasty (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, WP:JUDAISM members are the ones that are going to know the most about such a topic (about Jewish fraudsters). Epicgenius (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment, to explain the rationale for the deletion:
 * The page serves no purpose than the denigrate a religiously based group of people, as noted at ANI.
 * The list improperly implies a connection between the criminal's religious background and his crimes, as noted at ANI.
 * Appears to be intended as an anti-Jewish list, as noted at ANI.
 * With the exception of the NY Post, sources appear questionable. One source is a blog and unreliable.  Two sources focus coverage solely on Jewish issues.
 * WP:BLP requires multiple sources for derogatory information.
 * Page is a WP:ATTACK page.
 * GregJackP  Boomer!   15:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support deletion. I perceive List of Jewish American fraudsters as an attack on Jews. Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete As an attack page. The author's comments here leave little doubt for their motivation in writing this. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  15:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: Attack or not, the intersection of fraudsters and Judaism is not a significant intersection to justify an article. Also, there's not really much sourcing, and no prose  p  b  p  15:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:POVFORK of Fraud. Resolute 15:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This is WP:SYNTH, attempting to create a religion-based connection that doesn't appear in any of the sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ATTACK, and WP:POVFORK per Resolute. Yoninah (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:SYN per Alansohn. There's really nothing more you can say about it. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per WP:OR and WP:LISTN. - MrX 16:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Change my !vote to speedy delete - A10 - "Pages that disparage... their subject" - MrX
 * Speedy delete either attack page or trolling, doesn't much matter which but there's no reason to let it sit 7 more days (see WP:SNOW. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. I am sure there are other websites that would host this list, Wikipedia should not be one of them. Shearonink (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete – no significant value, and you can easily Google it. It does not belong on Wikipedia. Epicgenius (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2013 (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.