Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT Jews (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. This is clearly a notable topic, as evidenced by the numerous books that DHowell pointed out (among other things); as such, this is an acceptable list. Additionally, after examining the various arguments, it seems consensus has been established. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

List of LGBT Jews
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Lists like this one present very similar issues. This list is a peculiar intersection of Jewishness and homosexuality. It is not notable to be Jewish. It is not notable to be homosexual (nor lesbian, bisexual or transgendered, but I will use the term "homosexual" in this nomination as a shorthand of convenience, not to attempt to classify those who do not wish to be thus classified)). And the intersection of Jewishness and homosexuality is also not notable.

I have no doubt that it is interesting, but we are not about creating interesting items if that is all that they are.

I feel that it is reasonably well referenced. With such a list it would be most unwise for it not to be well referenced.

This is not a "Category vs List" debate. I am perfectly content for lists and categories to co-exist. Each adds different value. This discussion is solely about whether this list, which seems to be more of prurient interest than anything else, has a true place here. The nomination is categorically not anti-Semitic nor anti-homosexual. It is purely for the enhancement of the encyclopaedia by discussing and potentially reaching a consensus to prune an interesting but non notable intersection Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as cruft, pure and simple. Whilst there may be individuals on this list who are notable, and deserving of encyclopaedic articles, being Jewish or LBGT (or both) is NOT, ipso facto evidence of such notability. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - As said before being a homosexual Jew does not make you notable. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 16:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The intersection of being Jewish and LGBT just might be notable after all. See for example this documentary film about LGBT Jews Trembling Before G-d, this LGBT synagogue Beth Chayim Chadashim, and the whole Homosexuality and Judaism controversy dating back to the Old Testament. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel that you are confusing certain notable items with the concept of notability for this list. These items are things, but the list is of people.  There is no technical similarity here.  That for example, Conservative Judaism now ordains openly gay rabbis is notable, but is nothing whatsoever to do with this list.  The list cannot inherit notability from events, not documentaries, nor form alleged prohibitions in Leviticus.  It's just a list of GLBT Jews and the intersection is arbitrary.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think if you believe this list primarily serves "prurient interests" you're missing the point.  As Linguist pointed out, the intersection of Judaism and LGBT sexuality can be a notable one (so long as the articles of the subjects included in the list are properly referenced).  I believe it is beneficial to the encyclopedia for this list to remain, and as such, I believe the list should be kept.    user:j    (aka justen)   18:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment stating that I am missing the point is rhetoric and makes no substantive argument against deletion. To me it appears to be a list as I have described it: one of prurient interest.  I see no notability for the topic even if individual people named on the list are notable.  One is not notable for one's sexuality.  One is notable for one;s achievements.  Sexuality really is not an achievement.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, my saying you were missing the point was the best way I could come up with to assume good faith in your nomination. If you believe a list concerning sexuality is "prurient," then I'm afraid I take significant issue with your definition of sexuality.  My argument, which is not novel, is that the intersection of sexuality and religion can be and often is notable (broadly speaking and on an individual basis).  As such, I argued keep.  You apparently disagree, and that's your right.  But just because you fail to see the "substantive argument" inherent in my position doesn't mean it isn't there.  Take care.    user:j    (aka justen)   19:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC).
 * The list is just a list of LGBT Jews. That is truly not notable. Sexuality and religion intersect and that can be notable, yes.  But a list of people who have a religion and a non heterosexual sexuality really isn't.  I don't expect you to agree.  I just do not see an argument in what you present to suggest that this list is notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete A considerable number of people on this list never emphasized their religion and/or their sexuality as part of their careers, so the argument for the list's notability would appear to be very weak. The presence of "Related Figures" adds to the irrelevancy. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * delete. agree with theo.  the fact that wittgenstein is on the list was enough to make me delete it.  i don't think its an accepted fact that he is generally known as being gay or jewish.  untwirl (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If any person appears on the list without supporting sourcing in their bio, they should be removed from the list.   user:j    (aka justen)   03:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Homosexuality and Judaism is certainly a topic of encyclopedic interest. A list of LGBT Jews, which can contain information on for example how LGBT Jews reconciled these two aspects of their identities is a reasonable sub-article of the main article per WP:SUMMARY. There's been nothing presented here indicating that this list violates any Wikipedia policy or guideline. WP:CRUFT doesn't cut it. "It's peculiar" doesn't cut it. Nor does the rather sniffily dismissive suggestion that the list is designed to appeal to prurience. Otto4711 (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Interest, yes. But it is the topic at macro level that is encyclopaedic.  The micro level where we discover which Jew is homosexual is not.  And the fact that we are interested is insufficient reason to retain an article.  Lists are not to be used to conjure up an apparent article from an arbitrary intersection, even if that intersection creates an article about the intersection itself in a valid manner.  The overall topic is encyclopaedic.  The list, interesting as it is, is not.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep This is most definitely not a "non notable intersection." Entire books exist covering this intersection. DHowell (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Nowhere will I argue that the intersection of Judaism and homosexuality is not notable. That is a huge topic and wholly valid.  But the list of individuals who are Jewish and homosexual is still a list too far.  Arguing that the list should be kept seems to me to miss the entire point.  It is the topic that is notable.  The fact that a particular Jew is homosexual is simply not notable.  It is part of today's society wishing to know in some weird detail what orientation individuals have.  Just because it can be listed is not a reason to list it.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I have to say, I find this talk of "prurience" and "weirdness" to be not only insulting but evidence of a basic lack of understanding of the topic and the sub-topic. Otto4711 (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, now you have said it, since you have to say it, perhaps we can get on with discussing the correct topic, which is the list not the actual intersection between Judaism and homosexuality. The details of the intersection itself are notable.  The reaction of and intersection of LGBT folk to Judaism and of Judaism to LGBT folk are wholly notable.  But the list of those Jews "by sexuality" really is not.  Where an individual's sexuality has a definite and concrete "effect" on Judaism (or vice versa) that that is an aspect that should be covered, well referenced, in an article about that individual or overall topic.  Just listing the fact or alleged fact of their sexuality in a list is a curiosity.  It provides interest, it does not provide anything more.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that it provides encyclopedic interest as a legitimate sub-topic of Homosexuality and Judaism per WP:SUMMARY and you nor anyone else in opposition has cited a reason for deletion that is based in Wikipedia policy or guideline. The closest anyone has come is the claim that supposedly being gay is not notable and being Jewish is not notable, which does not address the actual list itself. Notability is determined by the existence of independent reliable sources that are substantively about the topic of the article and clearly such sources exist. So try making an argument that doesn't include the words "weird" or "peculiar" or "prurient" (which I think does not mean what you think it means anyway). Otto4711 (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The word will serve, though doubtless there is a better one. It deals with a curiosity about lewd subjects.  Smutty minded folk view sexuality as lewd.  Now, your using a rhetorical stratagem of attacking word choice may work in hustings, but this is not that type of discussion.  Nether being homosexual nor being Jewish are notable.  The individual's intersection between the two is not notable.  It is also not at all incumbent on me or indeed on any of us to cite any policy or guideline.  I am not the closing admin.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that you're the one who's insisting on the lewdness of a simple list of gay people of a particular religion, I would suggest that you might want to look to the state of your own mind as far as smut level is concerned. Others appear to be capable of discussing both the list and the subject matter without believing that those interested in them are sniggering schoolboys who've discovered that the dictionary has dirty words in it. And while you're certainly correct that under the AFD procedure you are in no way required to offer up any reason based in policy or guideline, closing admins tend to ignore or discount arguments with no basis in policy or guideline. So I suppose I ought to be glad that you're either unwilling or unable to state such a reason. Otto4711 (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comments to me are bordering on incivility. You are making huge assumptions about me and my thought processes, which I will neither confirm nor deny.  We do expect those who close AfD discussions to use intelligence, you know.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (←) I don't see anything in the above that is uncivil. Certainly terse, but, frankly, it isn't exactly easy to have a deletion discussion about a topic that one party believes to be perfectly academic while another other party believes it to be lewd and prurient.  There's a big gap there to bridge, but expressing a bit of surprise at your position is perfectly reasonable and not at all uncivil, at least as far as I'm concerned.    user:j    (aka justen)   16:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep nd clean up. Like many lists it needs some TLC to explain why this intersection is noteworthy and why those listed are on it. Agree in part that just because someone is LGBT, Jewish and notable that doesn't mean adding them to the roster is helpful. This is the difference between unhelpful content and a featured list. Thus these are clean-up issues to be addressed not a reason to delete. -- Banj e  b oi   06:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a clearly-defining intersection, featuring those individuals who have publicly identified themselves as LGBT within in a religion where many adherents are vehemently opposed to a practice that is Biblically-prohibited. Such films as Trembling Before God document the issues that some LGBT Jews face, and synagogues specifically serving gays and lesbians have been established in New York City's Greenwich Village and elsewhere in the United States. A thoroughly-comprehensive list of more than 150 reliable and verifiable sources has been provided to establish the notability of this intersection. While there are entries that need to be properly sourced or removed, the article provides ample sources to establish notability for this article as a standalone list. Alansohn (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are notable Jewish people who are LGBT, & notable LGBT people who are Jewish. As long as there are enough people to justify creating a list, the individuals are notable for independent reasons, & there is verifiable public information about its members being Jewish & LGBT, I see no reason to delete this list. Removing lists of "unusual content" like this one goes against one of the long-established traditions of Wikipedia: its characteristic quirkiness. -- llywrch (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2009 (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.