Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Jews


 * 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. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 17:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional Jews

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Per the consensus reached at WP:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Armenians and WP:Articles for deletion/List of fictional New Zealanders and the historical precedent of the debate WP:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Catholics, it seems that this list is inappropriate as it violates WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO and WP:SALAT and is practically unmaintainable. While it is adequately sourced, it contains both a) religious Jews and b) ethnic/cultural Jews, and there is no clear definition of what a "Jew" is for inclusion purposes. Claritas § 17:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say delete, per the other lists of fictional whoizitis. Beam 22:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think fictional Jews is a notable subject, so a wiki list is a good place to start. May be better as an article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep No objection to making this a category, but I note that the majority of the entries are sourced. The "What is a Jew"? debate is entirely a red herring--if an RS says a fictional character is a Jew, they meet inclusion criteria--BLP obviously does not apply. Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to Category:Fictional Jews. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The list can provide organization of its contents (beyond simple alphabetical sorting), can include redlinks for articles not yet created, can include references to elements of articles that are not standalone articles (such as a character in a single novel), and can annotate the reasons for inclusion. So, no, it's not redundant.  postdlf (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep While there is much pruning necessary, along with the need for some prose to introduce the article, what is here is reliable and verifiable. Per WP:CLN, lists AND categories are designed to co-exist synergisticly, each one helping expand the other and serving as an aid to navigation. Jclemens is dead right about the re herring raised in the nomination, which has no relevance here. Alansohn (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Every list is a directory, and having a category is no substitute for a list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, a valid list grouping notable articles/elements of articles by a significant characteristic. The inclusion criteria is simple, valid, and very straightforward&mdash;fictional Jewish characters&mdash;notwithstanding the alphabet soup of acronyms invoked by the nom.  I'd like to see some more organization to the list, such as more splitting by medium and maybe by time period of publication/broadcast, but these are concerns for further editing.  The nom's question about the definition of Jew is inherent in the topic (see Who is a Jew?) and not a fatal flaw in the concept of the list (if it was, the Lists of Jews for real people would also have to go).  And even if we assume that this is somehow more difficult to determine in fiction than in fact, because this is a list, it's quite capable of being annotated and sourced to explain the basis for each item's inclusion.  Given that it's well-sourced, I also don't understand the claim that the list is "unmaintainable," unless it has something to do with completeness, which I don't think anyone will pretend has been achieved, is possible, or is necessary for this to be a valid list.  postdlf (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Categories do not supersede lists - see WP:CLS. Jews in fiction are highly notable - see numerous books on this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep When these articles are nominated, they usually get kept. The nominator seems to be using the deletion of a few of these articles as a reason to delete others.  There are no historical precedent in Wikipedia.  Keep, because a list is easier to navigate than a category, and allows for additional information to be included.    D r e a m Focus  05:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list is both interesting and informative, and the fact that it does not differentiate between "religious Jews" and "ethnic/cultural Jews" (whatever might be the precise definition of such terms, especially as one is dealing with fictional characters) is totally irrelevant. Davshul (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Pthag (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, WP:NOTDIR, WP:SALAT and precedent shown by nom. This concept is much better handled by the category system, while this list which could never be completed would be an unwieldy and incomplete mess - useless for an encyclopaedia. Notable jews in fiction will have articles with full information, and those can be placed in the category. I'm struggling to see any valid rationales in the keep !votes (and plain votes) above. Verbal chat  13:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization per WP:NOTDIR. A category is quite sufficient. Agree with Peregrine Fisher that an article would make sense but I can't see the point of a list.  Ben   Mac  Dui  14:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still not following how this is in any way a "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization." If that was true, then it wouldn't make an appropriate list, article, or category.  postdlf (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per postdlf.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the above keeps. Per the suggestion that a category is sufficient, if that were wiki policy we would delete massive numbers of lists that we have now.  Lists, among other things, allow for the addition of information that cannot be added to cats.  They also allow for refs to support the inclusion in the list, which cats do not do.  See WP:LISTPURP, which states:  "Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial because the two categories work together; the principle is covered in the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Like categories, lists can be used for keeping track of changes in the listed pages, using the Related Changes feature. Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of its entries, and, more generally, a history of its contents is available; lists also permit a large number of entries to appear on a single page."--Epeefleche (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:coatrack of WP:original research that has been synthesized together into a compilation of trivia, which is what Wikipedia is not. The sources on this are awful comprised of snippets from self-published online FAQs and excerpts from IMDB. It's just a topic for a list that some editor WP:madeup. As standards on Wikipedia have been raised we deleted similar lists, including Articles for deletion/List of fictional Armenians and Articles for deletion/List of fictional New Zealanders. Policy follows best practices. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Now here is a well articulated (but whoefully flawed) delete vote so riddled with policy errors as to be scary. Delete because its is a Coatrack (but the coats being obscured are not identified), it is original research (but the facts unattributable to reliable sources are not identified), it is synthesis (but the conclusions unattributable to reliable sources aren't identified.)  It is a compilation of trivia linked to a content guideline that says nothing about trivia. It is made up (and nicely done to boot).  And best of all, we we've deleted other articles just like it (seeming to say that WP:Otherstuffexists is only valid when those who want to keep content cite other article, doesn't apply to us when we want to delete something, does it.)  This is not contest to see who can cite the most policies and guidelines. Even if you understand them (as your arguments show you don't), they need to be applicable to the article being discussed.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty simple. Either there are sources that address "list of fictional Jews" in direct detail, or this is a synthesis of a bunch of indirect coverage. Right now I'm not seeing any direct attribution to a source on this topic, just a bunch of cherrypicking of passing mentions, and a lot of it does not even "pick" from secondary sources. Here's one more guideline for you: WP:CIVILITY. There was a better way to have this conversation, if you really wanted to have it. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No incivility intended. Too bad you took it that way.  You IMHO got the policies wrong and did not relate them adequately to the article in question.  Your statement: sources that address "list of fictional Jews" in direct detail indicate you do not understand WP:Article titles, WP:Lists and WP:SYN. It is unfortunate that you don't understand them.  IMHO, none of the policies/guidelines you cited are relevant to this AfD.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we're having this conversation, because we need to go beyond each of our humble opinions. WP:Notability is an established guideline, and states that you need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to prove that a topic is suitable for inclusion. It defines significant coverage in the same way that it's defined it for three years, which is an eternity on this project. It says that "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. That's the kind of original research that's sometimes described as WP:synthesis, where the article creator couldn't find sources that covered a topic in direct detail so they settled for a coatrack of original research by compiling a bunch of tiny factoids... trivia. This article doesn't even do it by grabbing passing mentions from reliable secondary sources. It grabs them from IMBD and a bunch of FAQs. But even if these passing mentions came from reliable secondary sources, that would still fail WP:OR and WP:N in letter and spirit. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So you would say that Col Warden's sources per his keep above are pure bunk. The subject is notable and the list meets WP:list.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Refactoring my !vote. Looks like someone found sources that directly over this topic and might be enough to establish that it's suitable for inclusion, and not just an original idea for a compilation of facts. Giving the list the benefit of the doubt. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This list meets all the requirements of WP:list. Individual entries may need consideration, but inclusion criteria is clear, subject is notable and sourcing is adequate.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:42, 13 July 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.