Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American journalists


 * 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

List_of_Jewish_American_journalists
Unencyclopaedic, unnecessary, and of highly dubious accuracy throughout. Chiefly used as a tool for anti-Semitic posters to claim Jewish control of the media. Most importantly, this is simply a recreated version of Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jews_in_the_media, which was deleted by a large consensus. Dbratton 18:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep There are enough notable people on the list, and it doesn't seem to be anti-semetic at all. Lorty 18:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, it's not the list itself that's anti-semitic, but rather the way that it's used elsewhere as some sort of proof that the American media is Jewish-controlled. This is an anti-semitic position, and is what I was referring to. Dbratton 18:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Verifiable, notable; POV can be sorted out through editing. Batmanand | Talk 18:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, though article needs to continue to be watched for content issues (adding non-Jewish or non-journalists to the list). These are content problems and not deletable.  Furthermore, this is not  a recreated version of Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jews_in_the_media as can be easily verified by the edit history of List of Jewish American journalists; it greatly predates that AfD.  Possibly as a side effect of arguments I made at  Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jews_in_the_media, content may have been moved to List of Jewish American journalists.  As long as it is reliably sourced though, it should stay.--Isotope23 20:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Kasreyn 20:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral The list is a well-documented one and the subject isn't as arbitrary as some, but what I wonder is, are these people known for being American Jews and journalists, or are they journalists who just happen to be American Jews? If it's the latter, is this still a worthwhile list? GassyGuy 21:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per below. GassyGuy 02:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak delete, there's a [Category:Jewish-American journalists] which I think suffices, and I'm always keen to delete list pages where a category does the same work. The only benefit of this list over a category is that we have citations to prove the Jewish heritage of each individual, and while I concede that this is a big benefit, there's no reason why these citations can't be made in the subjects' individual articles. -- H·G (words/works) 23:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete List cruft. And a cat would do the job better anyway, if the job really need doing, which I;m not utterly sure of. Artw 00:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I think that all lists and categories of people by nationality, ethnicity and religion should be deleted because there is no agreement on the criteria for including people in such groups. For example, if a person moved to another country as a young adult and has since spent half of his or her life in many other countries, some for a few months, some for several years and one for many years, which countries should be counted? For religions, if a person was brought up in a Christian household, but does not attend church, except for weddings, should he or she be counted as a Christian? Even if a person attends church frequently, he or she may not have converted to Christianity yet (from non-belief). Also, a person may attend church even when they don't believe, out of habit, family obligation or appearances. As for ethnicity, there is disagreement over whether it matters how much of a certain ethnicity a person is (this may not be scientifically accurate, another problem) and whether it only matters what the person considers himself or herself to be, or both. For example, a person who is only 25% Spanish, but grew up in Spain, may consider himself or herself only Spanish, even though he or she is 75% English and moved to England 20 years ago. It should be remembered that it is very likely that we will not have access to all of this information (whether a person truly believes in a religion, what ethnicity or ethnicities they consider themselves to be or even all of the countries a person has lived in, if they are not very notable or there are just no records, like for a person who went by a pseudonym or hid his or her past), let alone which factors should be used to make determinations. This makes such lists extremely unreliable. Also, since there are no exhaustive lists of people by ethnicity, nationality and religion from reliable sources that we can use as sole determinants for inclusion and no widely accepted criteria for determining who should be included in such groups, the lists are original research. Finally, whether a person fits into a group is almost always determined by a member or enthusiast of that group. This tends to lead to individuals thought of as admirable (like most celebrities) to be added to the list and those thought to be undesirable (like murderers) to be excluded when they should not be. Categories have the same problem, so I do not suggest them as an alternative, although they might be slightly less abusive than lists, since only people that have articles can be included in them and people who are knowledgeable about the person are more likely to see that he or she has been included in the group. My apologies for the long post. -- Kjkolb 01:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant to a category for a start. WP:LC applies. Stifle (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Isotope23. Kjkolb makes a good argument about the fluidity of this or any trait, but to me that is a solid reason this should remain a list. As a list, it can be more reliably policed for solid sourcing. This list hasn't changed since the last AfD.--Chaser T 06:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as the person who took a completely unsourced list in May and sourced it under Wiki's NOR and V policies. Saddened to see that it has since become a battleground with certain oft-blocked editors insistin on adding inappropriate content. I do have problems with all the X-American lists overall. Maybe they should all be deleted. But as long as we list Puerto Rican, Irish-American and Catholic journalists, no reason not to list Jewish ones. Mad Jack 07:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's been sourced (and details or conflicts about the sources can be worked on the discussion page if better sources are needed) and it includes very notable journalist, of whom their religion is relevant matter. I don't see any element of anti-Semitism and even that can be taken care of with a prod for NPOV.Agne27 04:44, 17 July 2006 (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.