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 of the debate was No consensus - default to keep Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish jurists[edit]

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 anonymous 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]

I've restored my vote now sanity is prevailing regarding the editing of the list - RachelBrown 22:52, 21 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. --Sheynhertz_געשׁ״ך 07:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*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]

• Delete per User:RachelBrown - Poetlister 18:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons stated in other pages. Just way too many of these. EscapeArtistsNeverDie 22:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Londoneye 08:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just because other lists did not exist is not a good reason to delete, now Afican American list does exist anyway. Arniep 01:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --JJay 02:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Changing my vote. Don't like anon noms here + 2nd anom vote, both out of Atlanta.-- JJay 05:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Just because others have yet to be made is no reason to remove one which has. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yuber^(talk) 21:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Revisit those cases where there is no formal evidence that they were Jewish, but keep the remainder. There have been numerous influential Jewish jurists and legalists, and I would personally include the (admittedly few) examples where experts in Jewish law have set precedents in general law. JFW | T@lk 21:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable Jews. on two related notes, A List of Muslim Jurists and List of Muslim Sharia Jurists would be nice the former devoted to Muslims practicing in secular courts, and the latter in religious courts.Klonimus 03:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really agree with Klonimus on this, the Muslim jurists list(s) would be really nice to have. Unfortunately, I just don't know enough myself to even attempt such lists. Anyone more knowledgeable? I would lean towards one Muslim jurists list with two sections, however. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia is not paper, notable enough to keep.--MONGO 12:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. This is what we use Categories for. This is a ridiculous example of listmania.  RasputinAXP  T C 14:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless this is fixed up. By fixing up I mean making this into a list of jurists of people concerned with the development of Jewish law. This list in its present state is just a random jumble of people of Jewish extraction who happen to be practising law. Nothing is lost by purging the mess from the history and starting again with a clean slate.

Comment: I just noticed that the entry on Halakha has a section that lists the well known sources of Jewish law. I'm not fully convinced that a list of halakhists is even needed. Pilatus 17:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The delete is by Pilatus as well. Presumably then Pilatus would welcome a list of Jewish scientists who had developed Jewish science, African Jews who had developed Jewish Africa and so on? - RachelBrown 18:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In all the discussions on Lists of $PROFESSIONALS that follow $RELIGION Pilatus has been arguing that the persons' faith must be have some bearing on their work and not be merely incidental. A List of Jewish theologians is OK with Pilatus. Pilatus finds Lists of $PROFESSIONALS from $ETHNIC_GROUP silly but feels there will be no consensus for them to be deleted so he won't list them here. Pilatus 02:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 72.144.71.234 05:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another arbitrary list. Categories work well for this kind of thing, and prevent the trivial from creeping in. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 09:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see many good arguments to delete based on encyclopedic criteria. Lists are good, help navigation, still have functions that categories can't match. Charles Matthews 10:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Just zis Guy, you know?--Bob 17:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Gamaliel 20:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If we are going to keep List of Jews (which was voted to keep) then having List of Jewish Jurists seems like a logical extention. Plus, its not like the Wikipedia is running out of pages. Michael L. Kaufman 04:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no agreed definition being adhered to, and it's not always clear who the sources are and what definition the sources are using. Without a clear and consistent definition, and a uniform reliance on reputable sources using the same definition, the list is inherently unencyclopedic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - certain cats/lists are too compartmentalized or too broad or contain wrong/questionable names, but that's another story. I am against wholesale removal. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Just zis Guy StabRule 19:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How many votes is that StabRule? And you're the nom as well, aren't you? I would hate to think you are obsessed with this list. -- JJay 01:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By my count, that would be one vote. And they're not the nom, as I'm sure you'd know if you would stop and read it. Chris talk back 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • PS, WP:NPA please. Chris talk back 01:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why is it important to identify these people in a legal context as being Jews? More importantly, if we have these lists, why don't we have List of jurists who are neither Jewish, African-American, homosexual, married nor Canadian? Chris talk back 01:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.