Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish jurists: Difference between revisions

Originally from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews in law

• Strong delete exactly like list of Jewish bankers..no other lawyer lists exist except this one. Best to make this into a category -- in which case it is somewhat acceptable. 65.9.143.76 23:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New user: this AfD is fourth edit, the first three, all today, concerning deletions of other "Jewish foo" type articles. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Article contains information that couldn't be readily displayed in a category. It would be useful for the page to be limited to noted practitioners. The lack of existence of other lawyer lists does not preclude their creation in the future. I don't view that as acceptible criteria for deletion. Sorry. :) — RJH 17:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as List of Jewish jurists for consistency with naming conventions (categories, "Jews in music", "Jews in the arts", etc. have all been renamed to "Jewish Foos"). List of African American jurists exists, others like List of Swedish jurists would be perfectly reasonable pages. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: even though I vote "keep", I'm really annoyed by the very poor quality of this list. Like a bunch of other "feel good" lists where the goal is to stick on as many names as possible (by editors who want people "like them" listed), this one had a bunch of names lacking any evidentiary support. I've been working on improving it, but I fear a backlash (I've had such from LGBT and born-again Christian lists, where the "feel good rather than evidence" editors pushed an agenda).

*Keep - This is part of the general recent movement to delete all the lists of Jews on Wikipedia. - RachelBrown 20:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm changing my vote, not because I disapprove of such lists in general (on the contrary) but because it is impossible to add anybody to the list due to the weird attitude of Mr Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters - RachelBrown 17:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Now Notice how List of African American jurists and List of Swedish Jurists don't exist -- which just epitomizes the almost farfetched specifity of this list. Antidote 20:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I fail to understand is, if Jews are a "nationality," why can't they just have a list by country and categories like every other nationality/ethnicity on Wikipedia has (and seems to be satisfied with)? It doesn't make sense. As said on the previous list ... where's list of Swedish jurists, list of Irish jurists? Antidote 21:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Created (stubby) AA jurists list, which should exist. Please help fill it out. (List of African American jurists)

Please note: User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters just started it today. Seriously, can we act mature please? Antidote 23:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pages get created because editors create them, no? I created that article because it should exist on WP. Not sure why Antidote things adding good content to WP is "immature", but I disagree. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Antidote, I agree with most of the delete votes you have cast recently. I don't like overbroad lists or categories. So List of African Americans and List of Roman Catholics are definitely no good. Well, neither is List of Jews worth keeping. Actually, modify that: the catholics one is just a list of lists, no names are directly at the top, so I don't mind it. However, I find that a ethicity, religion or nationality followed by an occupation is sufficiently specific. So "List of <Nation>ish <Foo>ers" seems fine to me. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way that you and I dislike broad lists, I dislike overly specific and redundant lists that could EASILY be made into categories. I just don't understand what is all the fuss with these Jewish lists; people are literally making new usernames to keep them on here. The deletion of these lists doesn't change much of anything in terms of listings, as there are literally dozens of others with the same people. Antidote 00:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is something weird about some of the reaction to the Jewish lists/categories. Sometimes you see "hysterical keep" reactions, with unfounded accusations of anti-semitism bandied about (for either keep or delete votes actually, oddly enough). So deleting List of Jewish basket-weavers might be "another Shoah", while the anon voter 65.9.143.76 above seems to insinuate that it's a racial slander to note that some Jews are bankers or lawyers.

That said, I do think that sometimes lists are better than categories, or at least slightly different. When I created List of African American jurists today, I was careful to annotate each name with a helpful one-line description of the main accomplishments of each individual. Of course you can find out much more by reading their full article, but you can't get the one-line bios by looking at a category. Of course, my AA jurists are very partial right now—I just added a very minimal set of scholars and judges who came to mind. But if it is extended with similar annotations, I think it would be worth browsing through. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews, when if anyone delete, please tell my talk page. --User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg/sig 07:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - law is a profession to which Jews have long made a particularly noteworthy contribution. Much of the legal system in many countries is strongly influenced by canon law, which in turn is strongly influenced by Jewish law. I'm not sure if the name is right, though - a jurist is "an expert in law, a legal writer" - not necessarily a practising lawyer, which I think is what this list was originally meant to cover. - Poetlister 09:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]