| Revision as of 09:33, 17 November 2005 editLondoneye (talk | contribs)559 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:15, 17 November 2005 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →[]: deleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
| *'''Delete''', because I do, in fact, assume sinister intent in this case (in addition to the utter uselessness of such lists in general). ] 19:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC) | *'''Delete''', because I do, in fact, assume sinister intent in this case (in addition to the utter uselessness of such lists in general). ] 19:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' - see my comments on ] - ] 09:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' - see my comments on ] - ] 09:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' - silly, possible bad faith, useless. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 11:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:15, 17 November 2005
List of Jewish bankers
non-encyclopedic listcruft with little hope of ever becoming comprehensive or maintanable → Ξxtreme Unction {łblah} 12:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or speedy delete: This isn't just a case of lack of comprehensiveness. This is another one of those "let's list the Jews" things that certain people are forever engaging in. Of evil intent, evil effect, and misbegotten impetus. Geogre 13:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Should not breakdown lists by category generally Dlyons493 Talk 14:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --MPerel 14:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - ill-intended Renata3 14:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete listcruft with malicious intent. --Bachrach44 14:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Illuminati Delete as conspiracycruft, possibly with malicious intent. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, listcruft. —Cleared as filed. 15:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete doktorb 15:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Sets bad precedent. Religion and profession are rarely related. Next we'll have a list of "Christian carpenters" or "Muslim plumbers". - Mgm| 15:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- List of Jews. Includes List of Jewish publishers, List of Jews in business, and List of Jewish criminals. The "Jewish publishers" list has the same anti-zionist air about it that this list does, but it's hard to say. Maybe it's genuine cultural celebration? I dunno. My finger twitches longingly over the AfD button, however. → Ξxtreme Unction {łblah} 15:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, my fingers also twitched. I think we should nominate them all and see what happens. Renata3 17:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's already been tried: Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/List of Jews. The verdict was "keep". — Haeleth Talk 18:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, my fingers also twitched. I think we should nominate them all and see what happens. Renata3 17:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- List of Jews. Includes List of Jewish publishers, List of Jews in business, and List of Jewish criminals. The "Jewish publishers" list has the same anti-zionist air about it that this list does, but it's hard to say. Maybe it's genuine cultural celebration? I dunno. My finger twitches longingly over the AfD button, however. → Ξxtreme Unction {łblah} 15:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The logical conclusion of this practice is List of Methodist dentists and List of Sikh plumbers. Durova 16:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I should get started on List of unemployed Discordians, then. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Better not create List of unemployed Discordians. Unemployed people are unlikely to deserve an article, and listing non-existing articles which will never be created (or cannot be created) is cause for deletion. - Mgm| 09:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, thank you for that advice. In return, might I interest you in a slice of Midwestern Puppymelon? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Better not create List of unemployed Discordians. Unemployed people are unlikely to deserve an article, and listing non-existing articles which will never be created (or cannot be created) is cause for deletion. - Mgm| 09:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- I should get started on List of unemployed Discordians, then. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, per above arguments. Punkmorten 17:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete — Inconsequential list. — RJH 17:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)- Keep — to be consistent with the other AfDs I'm switching my vote. This series of AfDs on "list of $FAITH $PROFESSION" is beginning to seem too much like railroading. If the information is correct then it's a perfectly valid list of accomplished individuals of the Jewish faith. That seems more than suitable criteria to keep. — RJH 01:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, useful sublist of list of Jews, that should be AFD'd first if it you believe in the conspiracy theory. I notice there's a list of Sikhs, is that a conspiracy too? Kappa 17:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- The parent list has already been AfD'd and kept: Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/List of Jews. — Haeleth Talk 18:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Geogre. --Metropolitan90 17:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as obvious sterotype fun. Coolgamer 21:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per another cogent argument by Geogre. FCYTravis 21:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Geogre. Would that it were merely a totally idiosyncratic non-topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless there is also a List of Muslim terrorists and a List of Christian slaveholders. This makes my skin crawl. User:Zoe| 23:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Durova Ejrrjs | What? 23:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. File under "who cares?" listcruft. Impossible maintain and could potentially have thousands of entries, most of whom would be relinked. I'd give careful consideration to the lists under List of Jews too, the concept of which I find vaguely offensive. (I know it survived an AFD, but I think it should be revisited). If someone really wants to pigeonhole people by their religion, there are categories for that sort of thing. 23skidoo 04:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This makes as much sense as a list of Italian mobsters, or a list of Irish drunks. Szyslak (
) 07:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. But someone's gotta make list of Irish drunks. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. While all you politically-correct sheep are jumping off a cliff, trying to outdo one another (without actually having visited the main-page list), you failed to realize that this was but one of a series of lists of Jewish notables. It appears to be maintained by Jews and is well-organized, and the persons in the list are "bankers of notabiliy," such as founders of historic firms like Salomon, and most from the 1800's. If it were a conspiracy list, wouldn't it be targeting present-day bankers? So, you sheep can go jump off a cliff, having voted prejudicially without first investigating the case.Ryoung122 09:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- You may wish to review WP:ATTACK. → Ξxtreme Unction {łblah} 12:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Baa. Deep down I suppose you really want to know which Sikhs were vital to the elimination of lead-based soldering in plumbing? I still don't want List of Buddhist surgeons. Durova 15:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Obviously mine was a protest vote, because I don't think many people stop to see what the article is about, before deleting it. I can accept that you don't want a list of Buddhist surgeons, fine. It should be noted, however, that sometimes people form their own preconceived notions: was the list of "Jewish bankers" singled out BECAUSE of the stereotype, while other lists, such as List of Jewish superheroes (actually exists!!!) was NOT because it was seen as a positive portrayal? So the point was not to win the vote, but to get others to think before forming an opinion.131.96.15.39
- Being quite serious for a moment, yes I did read the article. I'm not at all sure whether this is intended to honor or stigmatize. There are fair arguments either way. I certainly wouldn't jump to the conclusion that someone who did find this offensive hadn't read the page. Granting the poster the benefit of the doubt, I still can't justify the list. Durova 02:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- A further response. I too "read" the article (it's just a list, of course), and my vote was based on the fact that I see no useful need for it. I would (and will) vote the same if someone posted "list of roman catholic sheep herders" or "list of buddhist soccer coaches", etc. PC doesn't enter into it. 23skidoo 16:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Obviously mine was a protest vote, because I don't think many people stop to see what the article is about, before deleting it. I can accept that you don't want a list of Buddhist surgeons, fine. It should be noted, however, that sometimes people form their own preconceived notions: was the list of "Jewish bankers" singled out BECAUSE of the stereotype, while other lists, such as List of Jewish superheroes (actually exists!!!) was NOT because it was seen as a positive portrayal? So the point was not to win the vote, but to get others to think before forming an opinion.131.96.15.39
- Baa. Deep down I suppose you really want to know which Sikhs were vital to the elimination of lead-based soldering in plumbing? I still don't want List of Buddhist surgeons. Durova 15:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- You may wish to review WP:ATTACK. → Ξxtreme Unction {łblah} 12:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not because of political correctness, but because I don't believe a list of Methodist dentists would be appropriate either. Jtmichcock
- Delete, obvious listcruft. - Liontamer 14:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per above 72.144.139.231 00:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Too specific. Youngamerican 16:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Why not merge into something less specific. And what less-specific list would be appropriate? Kappa 17:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but drastic overhaul I see no reason to assume any more sinister intent than I had when I have started similar lists. However, the article as it stands is dreadful. It doesn't seem to list the Rothschilds, and it's full of red links. RachelBrown 20:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per everyone above Descendall 12:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Categorize members of the list to Category:Bankers and Category:Jewish according to nationality, then delete the list, so no information is actually lost. ~~~~ 14:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, because I do, in fact, assume sinister intent in this case (in addition to the utter uselessness of such lists in general). Nandesuka 19:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - see my comments on Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_publishers - Londoneye 09:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - silly, possible bad faith, useless. SlimVirgin 11:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
