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.
Comment The
history indicates it is a recreate and may therefore be eligible for speedy deletion (though I couldn't find it in the log). In any case, it could be used as a vehicle for anti-semitism, I suppose. --
ChaserT06:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment The obviously necessary and desirable objective of keeping WP free of anti-Semitism isn't even what I had in mind - this is just a poor list. But seconded.
SM24706:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep/Merge I'd like to respond to some of these comments if I may... it is maintainable and it is very useful, given the emphasis on Israel in American foreign policy. I agree it is not as exhaustive a list as I would like but it is a beginning, it would help if organizations like The New York Times (as an example) would release the names and ethnicity of their editors, for instance. Whether or not something is potentially a vehicle for anti-Semitism isn't relevant, unless you can cite official Wikipedia policy on this for me. Moreover, anti-Semitism isn't as clear cut a topic as many of you would like it to be. As for the list being moved previously, this appears to be false, it appears to have been recreated from scratch and now excludes all of those names which actually control these many news organizations, which of course is the more interesting aspect of the list. I think that if you delete you will call more attention to this issue than if you just leave it alone.
Kirkswig06:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment I was looking at the current page that is hosting the list, which is here
[4]. It does appear that the previous list was simply deleted (without a vote I might add) and reconstituted with fewer, less important names.
Kirkswig07:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
MergeHere's the only relevant AfD discussion I could find (result: keep). I guess I mentioned potential for anti-semitism b/c I see it as a good reason to delete this article, though not valid under any wikipedia policy that I know of. Actually, IMO, none of the above are valid reasons for deletion. In light of the comment at the other AfD that this list should be carefully watched and maintained instead of deleted (I'm paraphrasing), I vote to keep and merge. --
ChaserT06:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. Makes about as much sense as "List of Caucasians in the NBA". --
GWO
Delete as per SM247. Also, I don't think a list of people in the media by ethnicity or religion, the article doesn't not indicate which, is encyclopedic. Another problem is the disagreement over who should be considered Jews, which has caused endless squabbles on other articles. --
Kjkolb07:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete this is exactly the kind of totally arbitrary, unsourced, & unverified listcruft that should not be featured on Wikipedia. Ignoring any potential for this becoming anti-semitic flamebait, this article has severe
verifiability issues. What are the criteria for inclusion? How are we
verifying that these people are Jewish? Where are the citations/sources showing that they are either practising Jewish religion or are Jewish by descent? What is our definition and cut-off for being considered part of the "Media" for purposes of this article? This just lists news personalities and CEOs. Where are the musicians, actors, directors, painters, poets, & authors who could all be considered part of the mass media? I can find at least 4 sources that claim I am a member of the so-called "Jewish Media", do I get added (even though I am not a member of the media... or Jewish)? There are just to many problems with this type of list for it to ever be encyclopedic... and compare it to a list that is actually done right, with sourcing and verification:
List of Jewish American journalists.--
Isotope2313:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment The issues raised here are no different from those affecting any other list of individuals by religion or ethnicity. Previous AfD have concluded however that despite these concerns the lists should stay. If we delete this list on baseless grounds then we should delete them all, should we not?
Kirkswig20:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment any arbitrary list that does not
WP:V it's claims from reliable sources should be deleted, whether it is about ethnicity, religion, physical attributes, etc. This isn't baseless; this is policy. I again point you to
List of Jewish American journalists, which is an example of how a list should be done: defined scope and exhaustive citations sourcing every entry.--
Isotope2317:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment I was correct. The issues you raise here are baseless, one only need to observe how you are now deleting the entries I am making into the list that you proposed I move these entries to.
Kirkswig21:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment Again it seems we are applying a different standard to this list than we do other such lists, unless of course the vote is that we delete ALL of these lists, but since we've already had that AfD vote...
Kirkswig20:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
If this other list didn't exist, I might not say delete, but this is a subject of obvious and high potential for controversy. That there is another list with verifying sources persuades me that there is no point in having this list, and strict enforcement of
WP:V is warranted. --
ChaserT19:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I don't know why you would do such a thing since the consensus here seems to be delete, not merge. It seems like a good way to start a fight.--
ChaserT17:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I don't understand. Surely I am not to be prevented from contributing content to a page. So what if some of the content comes from this page? The content *was* wrongly deleted after all.
Kirkswig20:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Sorry. Apparently my brain didn't process the "complete with sources" part. As long as you're meeting the definitional restrictions of the list for "Jew" and whatever profession, you'd probably be fine.--
ChaserT21:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Please do take a look at the new list. Please note how I am following Isotopes recommendations _to the letter_, sourcing each entry (despite the fact that no other list of Jews I can find is held to such a standard) and still it is not good enough.
Kirkswig21:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete — Normally an AfD of this nature would be raising red flags for me, but in this case the title is a poor categorization. So it makes sense to delete (or at least subdivided into a more sensible organization). Thanks. —
RJH (
talk)
23:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak delete per
RJH. I also have some question as how one would define "media" -- aren't actors/singers/artists, etc. media. It seems that the list is geared toward "news or pseudo news" which seems consistent with a questionable POV, but I won't go there (too far).
Carlossuarez4600:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. What is "the media"? For that matter, what is a "Jew" in the context of this list? (A religious practitioner? To what extent? Or just a certain ancestry?) Lots of problems, and this is a magnet for the whole "Zionist conspiracy" thing as well.
Grandmasterka05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep This list should be reformatted and edited, but is otherwise useful and encyclopedic. As an Italian-American, I would be proud to be on a list of famous Italian-Americans. --
66.139.221.23205:10, 13 June 2006 (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.