Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 6

6 December 2010

List of Jewish actors

List of Jewish actors (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The majority of the argument for closing as a delete was lack of notability, had the closer investigated the sources provided by those requesting a keep deeper I feel that grounds for notability would have been established. In the closing statement the closer dismisses sources such as The Jew in American Cinema and Acting Jewish: Negotiating Ethnicity on the American Stage and Screen as being about Jewish characters and productions , however both sources go on at length about the persecution of Jewish Actors in the early part of the 20th century (both in totalitarian regimes across Eurasia and in Hollywood as well)- why some Jewish Actors were forced to change names and even resorted to Plastic Surgery to hide their Jewishness , and why those actors who opted to remain in Jewish Roles developed the stereotypical "Jewish Character" to promote their Jewishness. In the late 1940s and early 1950s this turned nasty with the "Outing" of several Jewish Actors (pg 40 Acting Jewish). Whilst during the later part of the 20th century, ethnicity and particularly Jewish culture became a thing of pride, it also became a time when Method acting came up with a formula for non-Jewish actors to play stereotypical Jewish; as a result Jewish Actors moved away from playing stereotypical Jewish characters and a much broader range of Jewish culture was exemplified by Jewish Actors whilst Non-Jews tended to play closer to the stereotype (or Jews played as non-jews). A lot of these (and other sources) confirm the assertion that "The majority of people on the list have made some attempt to connect with Jewish Culture by playing Jewish roles." but this could be widened; that "the majority have acted in roles associated with Jewishness or significant Jewish history and/or culture." The article Secular Jewish culture acts as a head article for this, though it is in need of expansion in the Film section, though there is enough material and sources that a spinout into Secular Jewish acting could be considered. The list can be considered a list of notable proponents. I would also challenge the assertion by the closer that The large number of references to the article demonstrating notability "was pointed out to be misleading because the sources merely confirm the Judaism of individual entrants on the list; they do not cover the actual intersection between Judaism and acting" a number of the links already assert or question how the Actor's Jewishness has a notable effect on roles they have portrayed. I did suggest in the AFD that this should be held to a higher inclusion criteria limiting sources to those that show the person is notable for being a "Jewish Actor" but this does not seem to have been considered in the close. The existence of this notability already establishes that WP:NOTDIR does not apply because it is a Culturally Significant Phenomenon so whilst it was not specifically addressed by those asking for a keep we felt we were addressing it in our notability sourcing. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I rarely participate in deletion reviews so I'm not sure of the form. I think that relevant arguments and sources weren't raised at this AfD, which may have resulted in a Keep if raised, but on the basis of the arguments that were actually made the result of Delete was the appropriate decision by the closing admin. How does that translate here? Is deletion review concerned with process, or result? - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• These sources were raised on the above basis (with less detail) but they weren't challenged when I raised them, and I missed them when Wikidemon and Colonel Warden re-raised them and Bulldog made the claim that they were only about characters and not about the actors. Had I been aware I would have challenged that claim as I did above, however I was not aware until the close was made. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• That's the difficulty I faced - the keep side did themselves no favours in this debate (completely failing to analyse the sources) but it wasn't my job to help them. However I think DRV should be more focused on outcomes and less on process, so if it's the view here that the AfD came to the "wrong" result even if I interpreted the debate correctly (eg because the keep side just didn't address the points they needed to), we should think about overturning the close. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Endorse close. Everything the RFD nominator mentioned (the discrimination, the success, etc.) may belong in a prose article called something like "History of Jews in Acting". I tried really hard, but I just cannot see how a List of Jewish (and half-Jewish, and quarter-Jewish) actors has anything to do with what was just said. The list contained names, and dates of birth, and nothing else. Also, some of the people on there aren't even real actors (like Bar Refaeli, and Esti Ginzburg are mainly models). I also fail to see how the story of American Jewish actors has anything to do with actors from other countries (many of whom have never even been to the US.) If you want to write something about the "Jewish characters/stereotypes", or what Jewish actors have been through, go ahead, but the list has absolutely no relation to those issues. Which is why I voted delete in the first place.--Therexbanner (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm vacillating about whether it's a good idea to pigeonhole people by ethnicity on Wikipedia. Up until yesterday I was pretty anti, but DustFormsWords is in the process of persuading me round for some cases. We have a Category:Jewish actors, so per WP:CLN we could have a list. Alternatively, if this list is kept deleted at DRV, then we need to raise a CfD for Category:Jewish actors.—S Marshall T/C 13:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn as the deletion arguments were in no way stronger, and because this result is contrary to the broader consensus on such lists. Unless, that is, we're going to completely delete Lists of Jews and all of its other sublists. That's where the comments about the difficulty of defining who is a Jew aim; such complaints are in no way specific to this list and so long as we have any lists of Jews the difficulty with defining who is or isn't should not be applied to one sublist out of context. And that's a better argument for deleting a category, given that a list can provide sourcing and explanation for each entry to justify its inclusion. This capability of lists obviates any need for alarm from the fact that there may be varying inclusion criteria. On the issue of whether it's a non-notable intersection (many sources say not) is really irrelevant as long as it's a sensible way to index articles, and splitting the lists of Jews by occupation is a sensible way to divide the topic. Requiring the intersection to be significant for most or all members is a proper standard for categories, not lists, and I see no reason to expand that to lists, which aim to be comprehensive indexes of articles. And claiming this is a WP:NOTDIR "violation" (really the last resort for those who want to delete a list but can't come up with a more specific, better reason) as an unencyclopedic cross-categorization is a stretch; comparing this to [ethnic group] employed by [organization], the generic example of a bad list, is a really poor analogy because that third step of who employed them as actors is not included. Simply asserting that opinion certainly does not counter the general utility of dividing an index of people by occupation. It's simply a proper and reasonable sublist. Many of the deletion votes in fact seem to implicitly recognize that it's encyclopedic, such as one commenter saying it would make a better category than list because of its breadth, and another similarly saying it would make more sense if it were narrower, such as Jewish American actors; both such comments point towards making sublists of this list by country as a way to improve it, rather than offering any basis for deletion.

  If, instead, the end result should be that no lists of people by ethnicity are kept on Wikipedia, then that should occur following a larger discussion rather than a haphazard targeting. I simply see no valid reason offered to delete this list but not all such lists. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Extrasolar Dwarf Planet

Extrasolar Dwarf Planet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Here is what I wrote on Spartaz's page: "You listen here! I have made articles about extrasolar dwarf planets on Wikipedia and I have not cared about the name. I had been told that there is a problem with Exodwarf Planet as a name so fine Extrasolar Dwarf Planet is the same idea. Frankly while Exodwarf is not a real word. Exodwarf planet is! I was told that Extrasolar Dwarf Planet is acceptable and peer reviewed, a real word. You have expanded Wikipedia rules beyond what they are here. You are hereby challenged." Yisraelasper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC). Frankly on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1257%2B12_D it speaks of extrasolar dwarf planets. I had said this before, MY ARTICLE WAS ABOUT A CONCEPT. THE NAME DOES AND DID NOT MATTER! I know enough to know that something that is not a word should not be declared one. I'm not interested in an exact name. I never was! Enough with this overzealous inquisition and literalness! The page was said to be there during the debate about exodwarf planet. All I did was add content.

• Endorse- I don't think the debate could have been closed any other way, and reposting the exact same article under a slightly different name doesn't help. The article was deleted because it liked to the creator's blog and user comments on other sites in order to promote a neologism. Under the new name it is arguably no longer a neologism but the extremely poor sourcing is still an issue. Reyk _YO! 07:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Seems like the proper close. FWIW if you want something undeleted its best not to disparge the deleting admin. This nomination is exactly how not to get a deletion overturned. ThemFromSpace 08:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Don't Endorse Let's get something straight here. There is no neologism. There is only promotion of the topic, the concept. By now the word exodwarf planet/extrasolar dwarf planet is a real word. Saying exodwarf by itself without adding the words dwarf planet is not a real word at least not yet and I do not care what they call an extra/exo/(solar)/dwarf (planet). I have never cared. It is the concept that is important to me. As for supposedly disparaging the deleting commitee I wasn't being insulting. The Spanish Inquisition was not meant. It is however frustrating when you are being judged without the taking into account on the part of at least some of the judges the evidence and arguments you give on your own behalf. Also rather than be focused on the article you concentrate on the motivation. Who brings an article they don't care about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraelasper (talk • contribs) 12:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• We have featured articles on both Dwarf planet and Extrasolar planet. Only one (1) extrasolar dwarf planet is known to exist (PSR B1257+12 A which has its own article), so this material could only be about extrasolar dwarf planets as a group. I don't think we need any coverage of the group until some others are found.—S Marshall T/C 13:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)