Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews

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 was no consensus.

This discussion is interesting in that it does not focus on one of the standard reasons for deletion (notability, verifiability, etc.). Rather, editors disagree about whether such a categorization of people is at all appropriate or even possible. As usual, I begin with the rough headcount, which is 20 to 14 (41% to 59%) in favor of keeping. Even if a higher proportion of "keep" than "delete" opinions would be invalid for some reason, this would not provide us with the required consensus for deletion.

I must still examine, however, whether there is a "delete" argument that is so compelling that it mandates deletion regardless of consensus (e.g., a copyright violation). I do not find any such argument being made here.

Finally, I must examine whether the "delete" arguments are, in aggregate, so much more persuasive in the light of policies, guidelines and precedents than the "keep" arguments, that I would nonetheless be justified in finding a consensus for deletion. That is also not so:

• Precedent is inconclusive; some similar categories and lists appear to have previously been kept; others deleted.
• It has been pointed out that the lists may violate WP:SAL#Lists of people, which would require the inclusion of only people notable for being a former member of the religion, but if so, that can be addressed by editing rather than deletion.
• One person thinks that such a categorization is WP:OR, but that issue has not been discussed further.
• Many other "delete" opinions concern the broader perceived merits of such lists, often in terms such as "arbitrary and selective", "selective and unencyclopedic", "hard to see any positive purpose or need" or "never on the level, straightforward, and neutral". Whether or not one agrees with these assessments, they are not based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or they address issues such as neutrality that can be corrected by editing rather than deletion.

For these reasons, these arguments do not outweigh the "keep" arguments, or at least not strongly enough for me to find a consensus for deletion.  Sandstein  07:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]