Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 March 30
2011 April 1 >

31 March 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Jewish American businesspeople (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The category was deleted a while back. I believe that it should be restored for two reasons. For one, many other Jewish occupations, including some with a lower population of pages, have their own categories. For two, this discussion indicates that it and several other related categories originally deleted in error or without consensus, and I can find no record of a proper CfD discussion on the topic (the deletion rationale links to the category itself, not a CfD or other discussion). I messaged the original deleting admin, but he is apparently on a wikibreak Purplebackpack89 21:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be here. I've placed it above, as well. lifebaka++ 00:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The hyphen would be correct, since both "Jewish" and "American" are being used as adjectives. I don't see the need to have a separate discussion about the unhyphenated version. Is there any reason to believe that the above unanimous discussion is to be questioned? Chick Bowen 00:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion is four years old, and, judging by the prevelance of other Jewish-American categories (e.g. Category:Jewish American sportspeople, Category:Jewish American artists), consensus has changed in the ensuing period against the over-categorization argument. Also note comment about G4 possibly being in error on the Category talk for the next level above. In the four years, the naming conventions have also changed Purplebackpack89 00:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While that may be true, I'm not sure we've returned to categorizing businesspeople by ethnicity. (For example, there isn't a Category:Italian-American businesspeople or a Category:Indian-American businesspeople.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I think the consensus on such pages has probably changed. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Deletion was perfectly in order, and that ancient discussion in no way "indicates that it and several other related categories originally deleted in error or without consensus". In fact, the person who asked that they be recreated was eventually permanently banned for continual BLP-violation and disruption on this topic. While some such categories do exist, many others have been rightly deleted as overcategorizations. Also, the consensus on such pages hasn't changed, which is why there aren't any Category:Italian-American businesspeople etc. Jayjg (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's the harm in relisting? The page you cite was deleted over a year ago and without a community-wide discussion; it's reaching to say that "consensus hasn't changed" based solely on that discussion. PS: The banned argument is fallacious, just because a user is banned doesn't mean everything he said or did is wrong Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CfDs don't - and will never - get community-wide consensus. Bulldog123 23:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I was referring to is the fact that I-A businessmen was closed without a CfD at all, and therefore it's impossible to gauge what consensus is from that most recent deletion Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well Italian American business would never make a viable article and neither would Jewish American business. I'm not sure what there is to discuss at CfD. We tend to avoid categorizing people by ethnicity and occupation unless there's a phenomenon involving the two. Otherwise it loses any encyclopedic value. Also I believe that this is a better gauge of consensus that the recent CfDs on similar topics -- which suggest only a consensus among special-interest and Wikiproject-oriented users (i.e., a small sect of users that regularly edit those particular topics). For a community-wide consensus, why not open a discussion at Village Pump? Bulldog123 23:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on the page you pointed out, the editors who comment both appear to be in favor of creation of more categories. There are other things to consider, such as where the parent category is unweildy, and at this point Category:American Jews most certainly is. You also have to consider. For articles, may I suggest List of Jewish American businesspeople or List of Italian American business people perhaps, not that having or not having an article equates with having or not having a category. And as I've said, there are numerous other Jewish-American categories, some of which don't have much of a "phenomenon". I'm not sure phenomenon is the right word, nor do I think it appropriate to define "phenomenon", as I feel that it would very easily be offensive. I personally would avoid classifying any discussion as "special-interest-oriented". Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa...whoa...whoa...slipperyslope fallacy all over the place Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am generally intolerant of “slippery slope”-based arguments because they are often abused by those afraid of change. Invariably, those opposed to whites marrying blacks in the U.S. South in the 1950s and those opposed to gay unions relied upon (and they still do) arguments that ended up with people in bed with goats and 5 year olds (although, if the goat is happy and smoking a cigarette afterwards, I don’t much care about that scenario either).

    Interestingly, I didn’t raise a slippery-slope argument above. I didn’t suggest that Category:Jewish American businesspeople was inappropriate because it could lead to those other categories; I mentioned those other categories as humorous exaggeration in hopes it would be easier for others here to recognize the reasoning underlying why Category:Jewish American businesspeople is already inappropriate. As I already mentioned above, that category in and of itself could never be sufficiently comprehensive to be of any real value in an encyclopedia. It is too much of a pure list and is of too little notable value. It would be a mere curio and no-doubt the source of endless and protracted bickering over BLP issues, notability, and what constitutes an RS.

    And, to make you happy about being right all along over my raising a “slipper-slope” argument, I’ll oblige you: were we to add this turd to the front lawn, other dog owners will inevitably follow suit. Greg L (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Greg, your sarcasm and fallacious arguments carry no weight. "Jews" and "business" are commonly used together, there is a connotation (albeit a politically incorrect one that most people, including me, find slightly offensive) associated with Jews and business, the parent categories are huge and could due with diffusion, and the category would be sufficiently large. Your fat Walmart example easily fails my last two reasons, and most likely fails the first two as well. I know you've said you're not making a slippery slope argument, but if saying we allow this category is going to lead to more and more ridiculous categories and eventually total chaos isn't a slippery-slope argument, then what is it? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting you: Greg, your sarcasm and fallacious arguments carry no weight. Really?? Oh… well… (darn) I thought I had a point. Just pardon me all over the place for not recognizing you were one of those *logic gods* who makes factual statements like that. BTW, you might chill a bit here; it’s about whether or not to bring back a category. I’ve been motivated on Wikipedia’s topics before, but this one isn’t getting my panties in a bunch. I’m not finding myself persuaded by the Winston Churchill-like eloquence of your above argument and am disinclined to change my !vote. Sorry. Speaking of Winston Churchill, I am reminded by this thread of an interaction between Lady Astor and Winston Churchill: She told him “If I were your wife I'd poison your coffee,” to which Churchill replied: “If I were your husband, madam, I would drink it.” Greg L (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Greg's point is my point, actually. Once there are books, magazine articles, and newspaper articles devoted to the cat he identifies, it will be notable. A one-off article is not the same as robust RS coverage, which is what we have with the intersection that is currently under consideration. If "men who picked their toes in Poughkeepsie" get that coverage, we should support its notability as well. The "x" doesn't matter -- it is the coverage that is key.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per my comment above, in part, but particularly per the following comment by Greg L: "The litmus test isn’t whether editors are interested in writing these sort of articles or tagging articles to create categories, but whether the resultant list would plausibly be of any real value to our readership—other than being a curiosity to go look at for amusement. Category:Jewish American businesspeople could never be sufficiently comprehensive to be of any real value in an encyclopedia." I really couldn't say it better myself. The chief consideration with respect to categories should be value to our readers, not notability. I'm completely unconvinced that this category would be helpful to our readers at all, and, frankly, contending that "consensus may not be as it was four years ago" does not change my mind in the slightest. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way we get around the POV and OR inherent in comments like "I'm completely unconvinced that this category would be helpful to our readers at all", is we look at RS coverage. Otherwise, we just have a bunch of editors saying "I think x" and "I don't think x" -- with nothing objective behind their statements. As would be the case here, as I think it would be helpful to our readers. Happily, the guidelines give us a way to avoid wasting out time in such subjective disputes. Instead of looking inside our hearts and guessing as to whether editors will "find it helpful", we look to whether the RSs cover the intersection and use that as our proxy.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, WP:OR and WP:POV are content policies that deal with articles and their content. This is a deletion review, and deletion reviews are all about expressing personal points of view (that is, about deleted materials and decisions about them). And my point of view is that this category would not be useful to readers, just as your point of view is quite the opposite.

    In any case, it's clear that you think my judgment call is insufficient here, and it is your right to think so. But I think your method of deciding that this category would be useful to readers is just as subjective as mine. Sure, reliable sources cover the intersection. So? That tells me that List of Jewish American businesspeople is notable. It does not tell me that this category would be useful; in order to show me that the category would be useful, you would need to demonstrate somehow that it could be "sufficiently comprehensive to be of any real value in an encyclopedia." Unless you can do that, I'm sticking with my subjective judgment (and I imagine that you will stick with yours). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I actually see it differently. Deletions made on the basis of OR and POV are not appropriate at AfD. They therefore must be similarly inappropriate at deletion review. To hold otherwise would be akin to saying in the real world: "evidence found in illegal searches is inadmissible at trial, but admissible on appeal".
Furthermore, given the above points we don't even have to get to the additional argument (as otherstuffexists is fine for additional arguments) that touches on the existence of other category intersections. Such as the following -- with luck, this intersection might generate as much interest as the following cats. Which may perhaps not even have quite the same amount of RS coverage as the cat at issue -- Category:American Samoan businesspeople, Category:Angolan businesspeople, Category:French Polynesian businesspeople, Category:Kyrgyzstani businesspeople, Category:São Tomé and Príncipe businesspeople, Category:Seychellois businesspeople, and Category:Turkmenistan businesspeople.
Finally, we don't look to notability -- as reflected in the objective fact of coverage in RSs -- for lists, but throw that out the window and rely instead for cats on POV gut feelings. I'm sticking with the broad RS coverage reflecting notability, which (as luck would have it) is the same thing that underlies whether an article could be written. Here you have books, magazines, and news articles on the intersection ... that is objective indicia of notability, and is exactly what we look for in determining the appropriateness of material of all manner existing on the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. I have not participated much at CfD. My impression was that, unlike AfD, where objective verifiability and (hopefully objective) notability were the focus of discussions, discussions at CfD focused on subjective opinions about whether categories were useful to readers according to the category guidelines. At SfD, where I have spent a decent amount of time in the past, the opinions voiced seemed to me a lot more subjective than those voiced at AfD.

    Regarding your second point, the categories you list are all breaking down businesspeople by nationality, an "essential, 'defining' feature of article subjects" according to WP:CAT#What categories should be created. Those categories are the equivalent of Category:American businesspeople – which, might I add, has no subcategories based on ethnicity. Category:Jewish American businesspeople would be a subcategory of businesspeople based on ethnicity, and when you go looking for other such subcategories, other stuff doesn't exist when there's an no article for it (e.g. Jewish American businesspeople, a redlink). This appears to be represented in the relevant guideline; and on that note, you should read WP:OC#EGRS now, because you can be sure that it will be brought up at CfD if this is relisted. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • @ Stop. A few points. 1) It is proper to have a deletion review if, inter alia, we have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. Which we do -- see, e.g, the refs that I point to that are subsequent to the AFD. Where there is such new information, the proper request is "relist" (rather than overturn), which is what we are seeing here. 2) You seem to be shifting criteria. First you say the litmus test is "would this category be helpful to our readers"? I'm uncertain what the basis if for that view. But when I point out that we have many categories that would appear to be of lesser interest, you shift the criterion to a completely different one, without explaining (at the same time) why "Category:São Tomé and Príncipe businesspeople" is at all either more helpful to readers, or more "defining" (whatever that means" than the much more highly referenced "Jewish American businesspeople". I don't see how it is more helpful to our readers; just the opposite. And I don't see why it is more defining -- I can't seem to find the RS coverage of it, and of its principles. 3) The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[1][2][3] In the (unusual) case of Jews, we have a nation that was largely dispersed 2,000 years ago from its homeland and geographic borders. The Jewish nation lives largely, though now not wholly, in the Jewish diaspora. Under Israel's Law of Return, all members of the Jewish nation are automatically entitled, by virtue of being members of the Jewish nation, to return to the geographic borders of Israel, and become Israeli citizens. Other religions are, in the "normal case," distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Atheist nation per se. Those who are members of these religions are not members of a nation or "people." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion, but are also a nation.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member" (April 25, 1915), University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, Retrieved on November 30, 2010
  2. ^ Palmer, Henry, A History of the Jewish Nation (1875), D. Lothrop & Co., Retrieved on November 30, 2010
  3. ^ The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 7: Berlin Years, Albert Einstein, "The Jewish Nation is a living fact" (June 21, 1921), Princeton University Press, Retrieved on November 30, 2010
  • Thanks for your detailed and thought-provoking response. I'll respond to each point in turn.

    1) While I substantially agree with this point, there are certainly many times when DRV looks at a proposal to re-create something and decides on its own not to permit restoration or to relist. I usually tend towards letting people hash out, say, questions of notability at AfD and not at DRV. However, this is one of those cases where I looked at the information presented and was not convinced that it would be worth the effort to permit re-creation of the category and go through the CfD process again.

    The two litmus tests that you perceive as different are actually taken from the same paragraph of the WP:CAT guideline. I'll quote it here: "Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject. They should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects, such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features. Examples of types of categories which should not be created can be found at Wikipedia:Overcategorization." I personally don't see these standards as conflicting.

    3) This, of course, is the thorny issue, and where I am inclined to duck out of the discussion. Because Jews comprise not only an ethnicity but also a nationality, under the guidelines this could be a valid category. But I am still not in favor of permitting re-creation, simply because I doubt that this category would be useful to readers, for reasons already stated above. Even when we throw all the other stuff out the window, I still have that objection to re-creation. That said, at this point it looks like the consensus might end up favoring a relist. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist more than credible arguments have been made that consensus has changed on this subject, one where there are ample reliable and verifiable sources showing that individuals have been defined and organized on this basis. Alansohn (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose relisting. Despite various assertions above, I don't see any actual evidence that consensus has changed; merely that one or two similar categories have not yet been deleted. Nor do I see any new evidence about the substantive merits of this triple intersection, a firm of category which is routinely deprecated because of the massive category clutter it can generate. However, I am making this a weak oppose because I can see that there may be some merit in the case for reassessing consensus after four years. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_March_31&oldid=1138438234"