Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictitious 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. JIP | Talk 09:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictitious Jews

listcruft, and even the lead section shows that it's speculative Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 12:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a coresponding list for Christianity, I wonder? If so, then this is just as valid. If not, why isn't there? Niki Whimbrel 12:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is then it should be put up for deletion, not used as justification for the existence of this one. Yomangani 12:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and would vote to Keep any any all lists of this nature. But that's just my opinion. Niki Whimbrel 12:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To nullify my argument there doesn't seem to be an corresponding list for any other religions anyway, as far as I can see.Yomangani 13:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There are other lists like this. List of fictional Catholics, List of fictional actors, List of fictional films, etc. Sergeant Snopake 13:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Yomangani 12:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment in the interests of fairness there should perhaps be a mention of this not unrelated AFD which survived: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_superheroes Yomangani 12:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It could be a good article, if all the speculatory nature was weeded out. Sergeant Snopake 13:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Why not turn it into a category? Category: Fictitious Jews seems vastly more maintainable and reasonable to me than a list. Dark Shikari 13:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, actually. Sergeant Snopake 13:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, on the whole. Niki Whimbrel 14:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

One basic flaw of a category is that only articles are listed, so if there is no article then there is no entry of that character/superhero/thing. Yomangani 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sub-categories could always be used... — RJH (talk)

What would you do with say Jessica, daughter of Shylock, in a category?--Newport 17:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note List of Hispanic superheroes Also Filipino and Native American lists exist. Would these then become catagories, too?Niki Whimbrel 15:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep although it should be a category probably, this is the kind of thing that people would actually want to look up on some occasions. in my mind the "cruft" excuse NEVER outweighs the need for wikipedia to be a reference. All the "cruft" types were created as guidelines for things that are random collections of facts (per WP:NOT). this list can help a researcher narrow down potential subjects. if for no other reason keep under WP:IGNORE.
• Oy vey. It's hard to know where to draw the notability line on ethnicity lists. Some are obviously notable. But this one... I guess I'll give it a weak keep. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and remove any speculative content. The war on cruft has its place, but the rule should not be that any article that starts with "List" is removed as cruft. A list of this sort can be an extremely useful reference for a broad group of people concerned with comparing various depictions of Jews in fiction. Erechtheus 17:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article has existed for very nearly a year and has been edited by many people; it is clearly of interest to more people than most articles.--Newport 17:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, we don't need to delete every list on Wikipedia, and this one certainly has encyclopedic value. syphonbyte _(t|c) 18:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, relevant to the topic of media portrayals of Jews. hateless 18:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not all lists are cruft. 23skidoo 18:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. We have no article on Fictitious Jews... because fictitious Jewishness is not an encyclopedic concept. If you don't agree, then try writing an article on Fictitious Jews. In general, there shouldn't be a "list of X" unless there is an article on X, and the article should be written first, the list begin as a part of the article, and only be broken out when it becomes too big. As is, alas, usual for so many lists, none of the entries are sourced and the article therefore completely fails to meet the verifiability policy. Is this a vacuous criticism? No. Picking one at random, the entry for Leopold Bloom has no citation. It's linked to a Wikipedia article, but, of course, Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources. And if we look at the article for Leopold Bloom, not only does it not cite a source for Bloom's being Jewish, it does not even say that he is Jewish. What it does say is that he is "the only son of Rudolf Virag (a Hungarian Jew from Szombathely who had converted to Protestantism and later committed suicide) and Ellen, an Irish Catholic." That might make him Jewish according to the definition used by... oops, never mind, I don't want to trigger Godwin's law... but not by most definitions. So, the list is unreliable, and due to failure to cite sources there's no quick or easy way to sort out the valid entries from the invalid ones. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. We have an article on Jews. This list is a sublist of Lists of Jews. It would appear your argument fails on the absence of related article theory. It seems to me the rest of the argument made here is that the article needs a lot of attention. I imagine that may be true. That's what the cleanup or cleanup-verify template is for. Erechtheus 00:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete These lists are too subjective, usually wrong, and potentially offensive when they make inappropriate inferences about characters' backgrounds. Travislangley 21:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I find this a very useful list. It is an extraordinarily sweeping, and I believe incorrect, statement to say that these lists are usually wrong (sofixit).--Brownlee 09:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as the list has substance, usefullness and potential - deleting the list will not solve the problems it currently has.OkamiItto 12:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, deleting would be purposeless...If you do that, then why not delete every other fictional ethnicity page... Michael 07:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sigh... another list for me to source Mad Jack 07:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lists of people based on their real or alleged ethnicity or religion are bad enough, as they serve no other purpose than to boost the confidence of people identifying with that ethnicity or religion, but to maintain a list of fictitious persons, where the "proof" in most cases is only their last name (which, in the case of Jews, is often a very dubious proof), is totally meaningless. The fact that there are already equally stupid lists for fictional Catholics and Hispanic superheroes doesn't justify this list. Thomas Blomberg 16:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What evidence is there that such lists "serve no other purpose than to boost the confidence of people identifying with that ethnicity or religion"?--Brownlee 09:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As a regular non-registered wikipedia user, I can't tell you how much I hate it every time I find a catagory I'm looking up is up for deletion.(NS)
  • I'm very curious... why were you looking up a list of fictitious Jews? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I love these lists. They really help organize people. And I am sure that there are people who should be on this list that are missing. If it is deleted, it is never going to be complete. And I am more than willing to help contribute to lists such as these that need expanding.Chile14 01:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How exactly did this list help you to be organized? Dpbsmith (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Since when does Wikipedia delete articles and lists that are fun and useful to people, especially pertaining to a certain ethnic group, just because others don't like the list or the ethnic group? If you don't like the list, don't read it. If you don't think it's useful, don't use it. If you think such lists pertaining to different nationalities and ethnic groups are "silly" -- then don't read them. A lot of people enjoy them and find them useful. I was sorry to lose my separate list of Jewish SuperHeroes, which was merged with this list. But this list is just fine.Myst3 19:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep "Mend it, don't end it."----SEF23a 20:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - well-established and useful list. Metamagician3000 14:53, 3 August 2006 (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.