- List of convicted Jewish criminals (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Seems to be consensus that it is OK per List of convicted Australian criminals and List of Jewish actors plus sources for Bernard Madoff and Ethel Rosenberg Bob19842 (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't necessarily agree.
WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't normally an acceptable argument, and, would we allow a list of convicted Muslim criminals? But equally, DRV's role is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed and I do think that you have an arguable case. I'm not convinced that this is clear-cut enough to speedy, even in view of the AN/I discussion. So even though I think NawlinWiki was right, I also feel that the better course would be to temporarily restore the article for a proper discussion at the correct venue, which is AfD. But I will certainly !vote "delete" at that discussion.— S Marshall T/C 20:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC) [reply
- restore and list I don't see this topic as a clear speedy, and unlike S Marshall, I really don't see any reason not to have such a list article. That said, please try to make arguments for keeping this in line with
WP:OTHERSTUFF argument is not very compelling. I'm also not real thrilled with the 2nd creation of this... Hobit ( talk) 21:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC) [reply
- I had created the article and had added one entry when it was deleted after a minute or two. It was never "a verbatim copy of the Madoff article." Bob19842 (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Actually it was neither a copy of the Madoff article nor a list. It consisted solely of a link to the Madoff article and one item does not a list make. —
talk) 15:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC) [reply- Would you want a draft version? I only had a minute earlier. Bob19842 (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For reference, there is a related thread at ANI (referenced by S Marshall above) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#List of convicted Jewish criminals. It is likely to end up archived here in a couple of days. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 22:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted - There is no consensus for such a list, and a similar attempt 5 1/2 years ago was soundly thrashed. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish criminals) The creator is an SPA on this topic and his main objection is that there is a list of Jewish Nobel laureates. That one may be debatable, but it's a definable and verifiable list. There is not such regarding a "list of [ethnic group] criminals" - no definition, no boundaries, and precious little documentation that isn't synthesis. So far he's come up with Bernie Madoff (on the strength of one rabbi commenting on how Madoff had shamed Judaism), and the Rosenbergs (whose Jewishness was thought by some to be prejudicial against them). The only external source for such a list is likely to be a Jewish-hate group, which of course is not a valid source. Otherwise, it's primarily original synthesis and can't be allowed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most lists do not have pre-determined or externally defined boundaries. Notability is the criterion for inclusion. Bob19842 (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which rules out this list, as there is no notability of a general list of "Jewish criminals". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated, external notability of the list itself is not a requirement, only the notability of the elements of that list. Bob19842 (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a notable criminal could qualify someone for a list of "notable criminals". His being Jewish is coincidental and is not notable. Trying to make it so is "synthesis" and is against the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Spanish artists suggests otherwise. Bob19842 (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They're notable for being Spanish. How is Madoff notable for being Jewish? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And you don't see a transparent double standard there? Bob19842 (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Madoff is notable for being a criminal, not for being a Jew. Picasso is notable for being an artist, an is also notable for being Spanish: Artists of all kinds are normally (and verifiably) identified with their countries of origin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So are Jews: List of Jewish actors. I provided sources to establish Madoff's notability as a Jewish criminal, remember? You didn't read the sentencing transcript, but said the paper from the Rabbi was interesting. Bob19842 (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Interesting" does not equate to "notable". You gave me one guy's opinion that he had shamed Judaism. It also contained a comment disputing the "Jewish criminal" idea. If that's the best you can come up with for a source, you need to find something else to write about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Lists of Jews. Bob19842 (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's merely a list of lists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. What Bugs said, and because the religion or ethnicity of a criminal isn't a useful or interesting reason to have a list. It seems more like a veiled piece of antisemitism. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I, and maybe others find it interesting. "Anti-semitism" does not include anything which could reflect badly on Jews, but is a type of unfairness. This is not unfair. Bob19842 (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the need to have something whose purpose is "to reflect badly on Jews"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not its purpose. Its purpose is to compile notable information. The information happens to reflect badly on Jews. The charge of "anti-semitism" is spurious. Bob19842 (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why do you keep bringing up the complaint about lists that only reflect favorably on Jews? And why are you focused specifically on Jews anyway? You deny anti-semitism, but your actions suggest otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand how that question follows. Please refrain from personal commentary. Bob19842 (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will not refrain from telling you what it looks like to me. Feel free to explain why you're focused on Jews. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not. Bob19842 (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So far, you are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Send to AFD, doesn't really meet any specific CSD. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. As Baseball Bugs pointed out above, the article qualified for speedy deletion as a repost; the would-be recreator has provided no indication that a new article can overcome the issues that resulted in the original deletion. This may not be a textbook G4, but varying the items on a list rather than the inclusion criteria previously found inappropriate should not be enough to evade speedy deletion of an already AFD-d list article.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your position requires you to clarify what in your opinion were the issues that resulted in the original deletion so we can check whether they have been addressed. Bob19842 (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, what you need to do is go through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish criminals point-by-point, and explain how your approach would resolve the issues raised. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That AfD was in 2005, BB. Bob19842 might reasonably ask whether the consensus has changed in the intervening five years, which is why, all other things being equal, deletion review will normally disapprove of the use of G4 to enforce an AfD so old.—S Marshall T/C 21:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The points made then are the same as the points being made now, and I don't see the user coming up with any counter-arguments beyond "other stuff exists". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree with you about the points, but the place to make those points is AfD. Deletion review is here to see that the process is followed correctly and that speedy deletions are within criteria. Where there's doubt, we should refer a deletion to AfD, and I don't accept that a five-year-old discussion should prevail now.
I'm with you in that I don't want Wikipedia to host this content, I'm only disagreeing with you about the process by which we should get there.—S Marshall T/C 21:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 10-4. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Should I list it at AfD? Bob19842 (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already deleted. This is theoretically about the question of whether to un-delete it. If it gets un-deleted, then it could be posted at AFD, where I assure you it will get deleted again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted - There's simply no place in the Wikipedia for this sort of "ethnic-group-as-criminal" intersection, we don't need to procedurally run this though an AfD to figure that out. If there are other similarly problematic lists out there, then they can be dealt with as needed. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that neutrality requires Deletion review regulars to carry the most weight here. The consensus I sense amongst Deletion review regulars indicates restore and AfD is in order. A decision there would settle this matter. If I could be given a day or two to create a draft version of a List it would aid consideration. Bob19842 (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really how it works at all, no. While various noticeboards do have regular editors that comment on cases that comes across, their voice is no more or less weighted than those who have commented on this particular topic in other locations. For the record though, I am quite a DRV regular, along with having commented on this at AN/I. I'm like a 2-for-1 prize. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because nobody has made a good case for this list existing. What would be the point of having a large and incomplete list of Jewish criminals? How would it be useful to anyone? There is a good well-cited non-racist article on Jewish-American organized crime and a List of Jewish American mobsters accompanies it; I can see a value in these. I do not agree that Pablo Picasso is notable for being Spanish - but I can see that the development of Spanish art is a reasonable topic for people to be interested in. The point has been made by others that "criminal" covers a lot of things - and the list could include examples of Jewish shoplifters, swindlers, Communist spies, terrorists. This gives the list the potential to be very large and incomplete, even if it sticks to notable people who have biographical articles on Wikipedia. I do not think such a list would be useful.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see
WP:OTHERSTUFF, where it is clear that this is only a spurious argument if the precedent used is not comparable or notable (ie. a crap article). The precedents I have used have been both. The talk page: "Worst of all, the first little bit of this ESSAY (but never the rest) gets used by people as a weapon in defense of inconsistancy, when it serves their purposes to do so." This dubious reasoning is why I think regulars carry more weight here. People seem to be showing up because they don't like the idea of this article, and using many spurious reasons to get it shut down. This should go to AfD where, if it is deleted, it will be deleted according to due process. Bob19842 ( talk) 12:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC) [reply- Where you can get labeled anti-semitic by a wider audience? Good strategy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think it's possible to be "pro-semitic"? That is treating Jews to unfairly special treatment, perhaps even labelling those who support neutrality and consistency as "anti-semitic" without any clear definition or argument? Just a thought. Anyway, if editors at AfD think this List is "anti-semitic" I look forward to discussing the issue with them. Bob19842 (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Or arguing it with them. Why the focus on Jews? Why not start with something narrower, like "List of convicted criminals from ]
See draft in progress: User:Bob19842/List of convicted Jewish criminals Bob19842 (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
