Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT Jews (3rd 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 Thanks for a comprehensive and civil discussion. Keeping for two reasons: 1) There's been substantially no change in policy since the 2nd AfD that would support deletion of the current article. Additionally, both keeps and deletes made cogent arguments, but IMHO and those promoting keeping think this article complies with WP:Lists, it has clear inclusion criteria  and it is sufficiently well sourced so that individual entries may be challenged, but the list as a whole is encyclopedic and should stay. Mike Cline (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Random intersection of unconnected categories. No evidence is presented that there is any special significance to being both Jewish and LGBT. Even the existence of gay Rabbis is not considered shocking or unusual, and long may it remain the case. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * delete Unless someone has evidence that this group exists as a community (as opposed to two communities that overlap). BCoates (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What do you mean by community? http://www.glbtjews.org/ ?  http://www.gayjewishportland.com/ ?   http://www.nehirim.org/ ?  I recognize these aren't geographically distinct communities in the sense of small towns, but...  --Joe Decker (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A pointless collection, since very few of the people on the list are primarily notable for being Jewish or LGBT. Warrah (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Question - This has already been ruled keep in two previous AfDs in 2006 and 2009. Unless a rule has changed in the meantime, why nominate again? D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 16:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The first AfD was closed as no consensus and consensus can change. — Rankiri (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, you are correct about the first AfD. The result of the second and more recent AfD was definitely keep. But should an AfD be used because the nominator thinks a new consensus is necessary? If the nominator thinks so, it should be discussed in the nomination. Also, the article is very active so perhaps a discussion of "random intersection" and [lack of] "significance" as raised by the nominator should take place at the article's talk page. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 17:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep (procedural) - given the comment thread above. I am not interested in this topic one way or the other, but I find this AfD to be off base because the previous AfD in 2009 resulted in keep and the article has an active history, many participants, and very extensive list of references. Yes consensus can change but the nominator does not have a convincing case that it should change in this case. I assume good faith form the nominator and other voters, but suggest a consideration of guidelines on forum shopping too. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 17:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take a look WP:NOTAGAIN. The first AfD was closed without consensus. The second AfD contained some strong arguments for deletion, particularly User:Pastor Theo's argument that [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. Besides, the third AfD is already in progress and the above recommendations make ineligible for speedy keep. — Rankiri (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - I was seriously considering nominating this for deletion myself, then saw that Guy beat me to it. This list seems very odd to me. What is the point? This particular intersection (that of someone's being both Jewish and LGBT) does not appear to have any particular notability. Given that that is all the information in the list, it can easily be accomplished through just the use of the category system. Lady  of  Shalott  17:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I honestly don't see what one has to do with the other. I'm neither LGBT nor Jewish, but I can't see how sexuality affects one's choice of worship, or how one's religion affects their sexual preferences.  There are anti-Semites and there are homophobes, but I don't know of anything that could be called "anti-Semitic homophobia".  Mandsford (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and the comments of LadyofShalott, the intersection of the two does not make any sense to me. Having said that, if this sticks, can we have black disabled lesbians in wheelchairs just to piss off the Sun? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  17:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  17:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  17:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable topic.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Clearly not notable. Outback the koala (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reluctant keep per WP:SALAT. It's not overly specific, as the length of the list demonstrates.  Every entry on the list needs to comply with the WP:BLP policies on sourcing, and every entry needs to be notable BOTH for being Jewish AND for being LGBT, but those are both issues for regular editing.  There's no inherent problem with the topic itself, other than it creates an article that's going to be a b***h to maintain and protect from vandalism, and sadly that's not a policy-supported reason to delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also because there hasn't been any relevant change to the article or to policy that would give us reason to revisit the Keep result from the last AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Why is this any different than LGBT people from England or English Jews? Being Jewish is not just a religion, it's a culture and identity. I have been working on Obama appointee Chai Feldblum's bio and being both Jewish and lesbian definitely factored into making her who she is today. It's a quirky, anecdotal and conversational list, but I like those three things. I don't understand the motivation behind wanting to delete such a list. There's certainly no reason the list is offensive.--DCX (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Being Jewish is not just restricted to religion, but also a culture, identity and ethnicity. But that is beside the point, its sourced and is just as relevant as List of nontheists or List of LGBT writers. It also is complimentary to other articles like LGBT topics and Judaism.  However, I think the best reasoning for keeping it is to quote DHowell's comment in the last AfD "Entire books exist covering this intersection". -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 04:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep there is clear, abundant evidence that people who are both lgbt and jewish are discussed, as a group. these are nontrivial qualities that identify people as members of two significant social groups. regardless of whether people feel either identity is chosen or something one is born as, the identities are both exceedingly complex and the subject of many books and discussions. i would probably support any list that combines ones religion/ethnicity and lgbt identity, as long as its carefully sourced This is an extremely important intersection. inclusion criteria can be easily defined and maintained. The subject of being both jewish and lgbt is a huge issue within judaism, considering the range of attitudes within this religion towards nontraditional sexualities. Anyone who says they dont see how the two are connected has not done any minimal, cursory research. "lgbt jewish" gets 9000 ghits, while jewish +lgbt gets 4 million. see ,,,,,,,,,Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SALAT. Postoak (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DustFormsWords and others. Seems like a non-trivial intersection. Hobit (talk) 06:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Guy. - Schrandit (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I have not changed my mind since I nominated this for deletion myself. I present the same rationale: 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) 13:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont understand how you can say its not notable to be jewish? i understand if someone is highly notable for, say waterskiing, and never talks about their jewishness, but how about jewish religious reformers, or activists who publicly state that they draw on their jewish faith for their actions? are you saying there are no jews in history who had any recognizable notability connected to their religion? and no LGBT people who have absolutely any notability for this aspect of their being? that doesnt make sense to me. would you then propose we delete all articles and lists about notable christians, muslims, celibates (including saints), etc?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, how clear can I possibly be? It is not notable to be Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhits, 27th Day Adventist, Member of the Westboro Baptist Church, married, single, white, male, female. As for the other lists, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS refers. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. you have made your position perfectly clear. and yes, from your perspective, those other lists and articles dont justify this one for the precise reason you give. however, I will point out that there appears to be consensus at WP that ones religion or sexual identity can be notable. not always, but often enough to allow thousands of articles and lists built around these ideas. to argue for deletion of this article based on the inherent nonotability of jewishness and lgbt identity may be arguing against a well formed consensus. by the way, i do agree that this list would have to be carefully patrolled and sourced. and i would actually not support all such intersections, as some, say transgendered zoroastrians, have not been written about and probably have no notable members.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per nsaum75. A subject extensively covered in scholarly and popular literature. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm also convinced by nsaum75's (and previously DHowell's) point that this intersection of categories is itself the subject of published works. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per nsaum75.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this non-notable intersection and inevitably non-maintainable BLP-violating mess. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. As other have said, neither thing alone is notable, and neither is the intersection. If there are published works on the subject, then write an article. Kevin (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be confusing the policies on articles with the policies on lists; they're quite different and have significantly different standards involved. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'm missing your point - could you clarify? Kevin (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The notability requirements for lists are not that the list topic is notable, but that each entry on the list is notable. (See WP:LSC).  Lists are (with some exceptions) essentially a navigation aid to existing, notable articles.  Whether a possible topic for a list is an appropriate topic for a list is covered by WP:SALAT, which in essence requires only that lists have definable scope, be verifiable, neither too short nor too long, and not inherently unencyclopedic.  Explanation of the reasoning behind this different approach to lists can be found at WP:CLN and WP:LISTPURP, being that as opposed to traditional articles, lists serve additional purposes on Wikipedia, being useful as navigation aids and as meta-data.  An example of why this article is useful can be seen by examining the length of List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (currently stretching to a ridiculous number of alphabetical sub-articles) and seeing this as a useful alternative method of sorting that content. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. I disagree with that guideline, for this kind of list at least. Neutral lists like List of rivers by age I agree with, but putting sexuality and religion into a list of people I find not to be useful. Kevin (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't find it useful, but then I'm not a researcher into changing attitudes in Judaism, or LGBT cultural studies, who could conceivably find it a very useful navigation aid. And yes, it's going to be an incredibly difficult list to maintain and protect against vandalism, hence my "reluctant keep" above, but "difficult to maintain" isn't of itself a reason to delete.  Which is a shame, because if it was we could get rid of a whole HEAP of troublesome articles about nationality and religion.  (I jest.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a list of living people, which to me is an excellent reason to delete if it is difficult to maintain. I'm speaking from the position that our responsibility to the (living) subject is more important than our responsibilities to either the readers or ourselves. Kevin (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTCASE. This is just that, a case study of Factor A (religion) to Factor B (sexual orientation). Try putting together lists of every religion in the world to every sexual orientation, and see what you get. Dew Kane (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a misunderstanding of WP:NOTCASE which can be corrected by refreshing your memory on what case studies are. WP:NOTCASE is, I admit, poorly phrased, but is trying to say that the existence of the general doesn't give you permission to create articles about the specific.  For instance, having this article (List of LGBT Jews) doesn't give you licence to create an article about an otherwise unnotable LGBT Jew just because he or she may happen to be an exemplary or typical example of the category. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per nsaum75. Clearly this intersection has received substantial coverage. In any case, clearly this list is an appropriate navigational aid. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per consensus on both first and second deletion nominations. Also because neither being GLBT nor being Jewish is derogatory, so why would some people think that the combination could have BLP issues? Atom (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree that this is a notable intersection, based on the books mentioned by User:nsaum75 above, but let's not pretend that there's no BLP issue. Any mention of a living person is a BLP issue, which we have to decide how to handle, especially so in this case where many people in living memory have been murdered for belonging to just one of these groups, let alone both. I disagree with the current moral panic that mandates article deletion as the solution to BLP issues, as I think there is a much greater problem with innacurate information in articles whose existence is unquestioned, and that concentrating on deleting articles that nobody ever reads anyway shifts our efforts away from the greater problem, but, please, let's not forget that WP:BLP applies everywhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you are not suggesting that all who view this article as suitable for deletion are afflicted with some sort of moral panic? I see this article simply as a wholly non notable intersection of two non notable attributes of a person. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm referring to a more general moral panic, which I probably shouldn't have brought up because it's not strictly relevant to this discussion. If you think that this intersection is wholly non-notable then how do you account for the books about this precise intersection referenced above by User:nsaum75? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nature abhors a vacuum, it seems. I'm sure people will soon write books that let someone create List of Gay Black Dentists against nuclear proliferation. The writing of a book does not of itself create notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, oddly it does. WP:N defines notability by there being reliable sources.  Two books (independent etc.) on the topic would, by the Wikipedia definition of the term, make it notable.    Hobit (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as this list topic fails WP:NOT as it does not have a definition in accordance WP:LISTS without which it is just listcruft without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A list needs some form of external validation in accordance with WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that it is not entirely novel or the product of synthesis, and looking at the content of this list, its lack of souring that suggest it is entirely made up of unrelated topics stitched together to create an entirely novel list topic that has never been published before. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you notice the book sources provided above on this topic? Hobit (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Have you ever read WP:SYNTHESIS? This list is Primary (original) research, pure and simple. Its never been published as single list, nor has it a definition that has been published. Just like "List of LGBT Dungeons & Dragons", its a list topic that does not exist in the real world; rather it is a list topic been made up to satisfy editorial whim, a practise that is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read your arguments at the talk page for WP:N and must say that your view of what makes for synthesis in this context is pretty much solely your own. WP:LISTS provides no such limitation, nor even hints in that direction. Hobit (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The key issue is that the list has not been published in its own right. Many other contributors to this debate have noticed that: simply mixing LGBT with Jewish topics to create an enitirely novel and original topic that is simply an intersection of the two is synthesis. There needs to some form of external validation, otherwise how can tell if the topic exists in the real world? I think Hobit needs to rethink his views to be clear on this issue. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As you say, it's the crucial issue: here's what's unclear to me. As you say, the list itself does not appear to have been previously published. But it's not true to say that the topic is "entirely novel and original": as the Keep voters have been showing with reference to publications, the intersection of Judaism and homosexuality (the topic) has been the subject of published works (that is, the intersection itself is notable). So the list is novel, but the organizing criterion for list inclusion is not novel (viz. all these publications). What I'm not quite clear about, being quite unfamiliar with lists, is whether that makes the list defensible. I would have thought it does. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having read up at WP:LIST and WP:SALAT, I can't really see anything to indicate that a list in Wikipedia is suitable only in cases where a list on the same subject has been independently published. Was there something specific you were thinking of Gavin Collins? Gonzonoir (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If you look at WP:LIST, you will see that a list topic requires an externally validated definition, and this list does not have one. In the absence of a published definiton, the list title is the definition. Since the defintion has not sourced, nor the list title, then it has no rationale for inclusion, as there is no evidence to suggest that this list topic exists in the real world, with or without a defintion. The same applies to "List of LGBT Dungeons & Dragons": how do you know if the list topic exists if it has not been published, or if the definiton of the list has not been published? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: But to me, all those books nsaum75 cites above (comment at 04:17, 13 April 2010) are proof that the list topic has been the subject of publications. They show that the list topic does exist in the real world, in a way that "LGBT Dungeons & Dragons" doesn't (assuming there aren't published books about that). I don't know what other indication of the list topic's reality and notability there could be. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The verifiability of the list topic and verifiability of the list elements are two distinct issues, because you can slice and dice the elements of a list in a large number of permutations and combinations, so some form of external validation is needed. E.g. perhaps a more concise title for for this topic would be "List of LGBT Ashkenazi Jews"? I might be way out line on this, but without any external source of validation, who could object if I changed the title of this list? I would expect at least one editor to say "you can't create/amend the title of a list just to satisfy your personal whim". Once we start throwing labels around without having to provide justification, we can pin any number of them on any topic we like. I can't prove that this list is a synthesis, but the absence of at least one single source to show that a list of this title or with a similar definition has been published elsewhere suggests to me that it is a novel and original creation created on a whim. If you look at the history of the list, I think you will see that it was [created] on a whim as a platform for soap boxing. If you can provide evidence that this is not the case, then good for you. However, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I don't think it has a rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The reason you couldn't simply change the title to "List of LGBT Ashkenazi Jews" is that some of the list members aren't Ashkenazim, not that the renaming would be a personal whim. Are you saying that such a renaming would be acceptable because there's no way to establish that each list member belongs under the current list heading? I don't agree that that's the case. I think it's quite possible to provide sources establishing that a person is LGBT and that s/he is Jewish. (That doesn't mean that I necessarily think everyone on the list currently should really be there - I haven't reviewed each in detail and would support aggressively deleting any list members inadequately sourced.) It seems to me like a perfectly clear list membership criterion, and one that satisfies a manifest definition that exists out in the real world (I think this because of the published sources dedicated to the circumstance of being gay and Jewish). Yes, of course there is then an onus to add reliable sources for each list member identifying them as LGBT and Jewish, but that in itself I don't see as cause to delete the list.
 * I think we're reaching the point where you and I just fundamentally disagree about this, so I'm not trying to grind you down, I just wanted to show that I (think I!) understand what you're saying but disagree that it renders this particular list unjustifiable. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Forgive me if I say I find your thinking a bit woolly, but providing a "clear" or "truthful" defintion does not compensate for the lack of external validation. Finding sources about different topics and using them to create an entirely new topic is synthesis in my book, and the fact that this list has not been published anywhere else except Wikipedia indicates that it is an entirely novel and original topic that does not exist in the real world, let alone notable in any way. That is why I think this list contravenes WP:NOT and should be deleted or broken up into list topics which are externally verifiable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Forgive me for butting in, but I'm really having trouble seeing any sort of logical argument from you here, I expect I'm misunderstanding you, so ... let me ask a few questions if I might. You make at least three different arguments here, so let me address them in turn. With respect to synthesis, can you say whether you'd also suggest the deletion of List of British actors and actresses and if not, why that's different?  With respect to your argument that this is an "entirely new topic" and non-notable, what say you to the offered (elsewhere here) list of books on LGBT Jews?  With respect to the "fact that this list has not been published", well, that's true of nearly every single list in Wikipedia as I read your words, so I'm likely misunderstanding what you actually mean, would you be so kind to clarify?  I look forward to and appreciate your clarifications.  --Joe Decker (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Check out the article Standing on the shoulders of giants to find out why verifiability is so important. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Your response does not appear, to me, to attempt to address any of my three questions. --Joe Decker (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. If there was an indication that LGBT Jews in itself was a topic of note (due to, (I dunno if this is true) a former taboo in Judaism but has become a significant fact in recent history to warrant more discussion), I could see this as a supporting article, but there's no indication that it is anything special about the interaction for this.  This is an indiscriminate definition of a list that support no other article. Better served by categories. --M ASEM  (t) 13:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep, but there needs to be stronger lede to this article, because as it is it is not clear it is coming from an existence and established topic. (which is what I was looking for in the struckthrough section above - that topic is buried in the See Also links.) And given that topic is well-sourced, then this is fine as an extension of it. My confusion was from the fact that lede links to the two separate terms "lgbt" and "jews" as opposed to the article that discusses this matter in detail. --M ASEM  (t) 20:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For now I've changed the lead to link directly to Homosexuality and Judaism. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As a further suggestion (based on this being kept as it looks like it would be) I would suggest a brief summary of that article to lead into this - as I read that article (so I may be grossing misstaking things), an explanation of the conflict within Judiasm' holy books and between different groups of the religion would be appropriate. Also a brief discussion (if possible) of when, historically, it became "acceptable" (in certain aspects) to identify oneself as a LGBT Jew without fear or consequence of persecution, etc. That would strengthen the article alot (possibly to the point of being featured?) --M ASEM (t) 14:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep As an LGBT Jew, I find it of phenomenal interest to find out what public figures share my circumstances. I don't suppose that I am the only one, and therefore this list is certainly worthy of inclusion. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 15:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the multiple sources, both in scholarly and popular press, this is a notable intersection. It's reasonable to have this companion list to go along with LGBT topics and Judaism. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as illogical because, according to Judaism (that actually opposes homosexuality from the Hebrew Bible) there is no connection between being Jewish and being LGBT. Also violates Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. IZAK (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A) That's for Categories, not lists. B) In any case, quoting from it: "...if a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created" There are several articles solely on the topic Homosexuality and Judaism being the most obvious, but Homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible and Keshet Rabbis also are primarily focused on this topic. Hobit (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hobit: A. This particular policy used in categories is frequently used and cited with regard to lists as well, simply because lists and categories are interchangeable and serve the same purposes and functions on Wikipedia. It's a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other. B. It is illogical to cite ARTICLES as disproofs simply because while articles discuss valid subjects in the proper context, such as what the Bible has to say about it or what Judaism, meaning rabbis have to say about it, yet an article does not mean that somehow a "new species" of Human or Jew has been "created" -- never sanctioned or conceived by the Bible or by the Judaism of the classical rabbis -- because there are articles about topics. IZAK (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Erb? You say we should use that guideline, and then when it says that we _should_ check to see if an article can be written on the topic, you claim that it's illogical to check to see if such articles exist?  Further, the Bible isn't an inclusion guideline.  It's darn important to me, but isn't relevant to this discussion.  Hobit (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Hebrew bible opposes men laying with men like women. That is (arguably), homosexual behavior, and not homosexuality.  That is not relevant anyway, we are discussing notability of the topic on Wikipedia.  Even if it were relevant, it would be like you were saying that an article or category on Category:Biblical_murderers should not exist because the bible was opposed to murder.  Atom (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Atom: Not sure where you studied Hebrew Bible or with whom, but classical Judaism opposes homosexuality and does not condone it while recognizing that the flesh is weak and that people do sin (to use the correct religious parlance and phraseology). It is also totally illogical to cite "Biblical murderers" as a "proof" because the list in question here is not about Biblical personalities and while it would be valid to create Category:Biblical sexual deviants because the Hebrew Bible has many examples of such persons, this would not be the same as creating tendentious and titillating lists of people who practice homosexuality as if so, then go ahead and let's have List of masturbating Jews or List of spouse swapping Jews or List of nudist Jews (all of which classical Judaism and its morality forbid, hence it would be illogical to create lists that unite such absurd subjects into an "organic whole") which would be highly offensive, inappropriate, prurient, and silly for a serious encyclopedia as is the list under discussion. Somewhere good sense must kick in. IZAK (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment neither Reconstructionist Judaism nor Reformed Judaism condemn same-sex relationships, there's no consensus on the subject among Conservatives, so I don't think you speak for all Jews everywhere...especially not Harvey Fierstein... --DCX (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Harvey: I did not claim to speak for any group. What I was pointing out is that classical Judaism per se is opposed to homosexuality and homosexual acts of any sort as indicated in the Bible and rabbinic literature. The case of Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionism is that of very recent modern breakaway movements from the historical millenia old mainstream that deny and dump most of classical Judaism as it has been known since Biblical times. But be that as it may, there is no such animal as "LGBT Jews" because being LGBT is not part of either classical Judaism or of Jewish ethnicity. One may as well create self-contradictory and illogical categories of List of pork eating Jews or List of sexually perverted Jews and no sane person would stoop to create such absurd categories. IZAK (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you really just state there there is no such thing as an LGBT Jew? Really???? Lady  of  Shalott  03:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment In addition, many self-identified members of darn near any religion have some place where they personally disagree with a specific interpretation or tenet. It's my understanding that Wikipedia policy on such things relies, in the end, on self-identification. As a matter of policy, then, whether or not an LGBT person of self-described Jewish faith is not our question to answer, and is entirely irrelevant to this AfD. --Joe Decker (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. such discussion is irrelevant to this afd. actually, if there is a large body of commentary on judaism not accepting homosexuality (which there is), and if there is any significant number of individuals who have criticized this as lgbt jews (which there is), and if this has gotten any coverage (which it has, per my book/mag refs above), then that controversy makes this a notable list and subject. QED.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mercury but one has to draw the line somewhere or else such lists and categories become ridiculous. How about List of Jews with amputated limbs or List of Jews shot dead etc etc etc. One must use common sense and see that these absurdities do not become the rule. IZAK (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would draw the line at list of jewish pokemons:) (just added Allen Ginsberg, highly notable gay jew, utterly controversial on both fronts. There are dozens of names on this list who were, or are, absolutely outspoken on this intersection, and who have gotten extensive coverage.) no one who has offered arguments to delete here has addressed the FACT that there are numerous books and articles which address the linking of jewishness and lgbt identity, that there are numerous notable organizations which support lgbt identity within judaism, and that there are many notable jewish religious leaders on both sides of this subject, both condemning homosexuality and embracing it, and their arguments are well covered. the debate occuring here points to a large debate in society. If someone can show that none of these phenomena have notability within either the lgbt community, the jewish community, or any other community (conservative punditry, progressive punditry, ecumenical movements, etc), bring it on. i dont believe its possible.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So where would you draw the line, IZAK? I see you have an opinion piece here, which I believe states you would advocate for the elimination of most lists of jews. I disagree with your arguments, (acknowledging you do make points necessary to consider when creating lists, esp. around ethnicity and religion vis a vis problems like stereotyping and harassment, and acknowledging that many of the lists you mention ARE likely nonnotable, like my humorous example), but regardless of my opinion on it, your position is likely to be far from WP consensus on lists like this. I would like to see more specific arguments for why this list is not notable, otherwise your advocacy for deletion gives the appearance of a strong POV contrary to consensus against this and similar lists.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete this is clearly a cross categorisation. --Ktlynch (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per arguments of User:Phil Bridger, notable intersection as evidenced by books on topic. I symapthize with the potential for maintanence mayhem, but don't find that an overriding issue for a deletion discussion. --Joe Decker (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above comments.  Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This list emphasizes the intersections of sexuality, culture, ethnicity, religion and status. I imagine that there are people who might find this resource to be very useful for identifying and learning about individuals who identify as LGBT and Jewish. Joy299 (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment To cite another user on a similar AfD discussion: I also would like to get rid of the categorizations based on ethnicity or religion, but Wikipedia is a also a reflection of our fragmented society. I would like to say delete but it is pointless. Nageh (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Alright, that was a quick shot before. While I do not agree with such lists in general, at least this one does touch a notable intersection with religion. And given that we even keep lists based on religion/ethnicity/etc. where this is absolutely not the case, based on non-discriminatory arguments I am inclined to vote keeping this list. Nageh (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Per nsaum75, there are plenty of sources that attest to this being a notable intersection. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, per my arguments above. I just noticed that I didn't give a !vote above, so here it is. In the spirit of WP:BLP the list should be confined to notable people who verifiably identify themselves as both Jewish and LGBT, but that is a content, rather than an existential issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 21 April 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.