(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. John254 14:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices[edit]

List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a violation of Wikipedia:Consensus (and indirectly of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference as will be explained.) This list was created by User:BrownHairedGirl to counteract and pre-empt a similar vote about the fate of Category:Jewish United States Supreme Court justices that is taking place now, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 24#Category:Jewish United States Supreme Court justices. She says: "I have created List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices to preserve the information." But the point of putting that categeory to a vote is that the information does not deserve to be "preserved" which she has taken it upon herself to decide on her own while a vote is in progress, indeed as a unilateral response to that vote. In this case, both this category and the list are of an identical nature, and an editor should not undertake any preemptive moves, maneuvers, or leights of (the editorial) hand of moving categories to lists or lists to categories, or renaming articles, lists, or categories while a vote is still in progress with the sole purpose of saving them from a possible axing. IZAK 14:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 14:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for above reasons, IZAK 14:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. IZAK, please assume good faith.
    Far from trying to pre-empt or counteract consensus, I was trying facilitate the emerging consensus by removing the concern that the info would be lost; I was explicit at CFD about what I had done, and the first objection to it being listified is your objection today at CfD. I have no particular interest in this list either way other than that someone thought the information was useful, and since many other CfDs have prompted the useful creation of a list, I thought that I would take the time to do so in this case.
    My understanding of the nature of a CFD debate is different to yours: not that the data is "inappropriate information", but that it inappropriate for the category system ... a position which I supported in this case (which makes a nonsense of your suggestion that I was trying to counteract consensus). As you may be aware, the deletion criteria for categories are diferent from those for lists, so in common with many other categories which are deleted, I thought that intended purpose of the category could be preseved as a list.
    Now, apart from your rather heated allegation of bad faith, can you suggest any AfD criteria by which this list should be deleted? The only guideline you cite is WP:OCAT, which realtes to categorisation, not to lists. Please remember the difference between a list and a category. And do, please read WP:AGF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi BrownHairedGirl: Indeed I do assume good faith about you, but not in this case where I think you made a huge mistake, plain and simple, in arbitrarily creating a list to act as an "umbrella" or "safety net" for the information in the category that is up for a vote. (Had a vote not been in progress, then your move would not be such a problem, asside from creating Wiki-clutter, like so many editors who have a field day creating things that are ultimately also a waste of time.) But to jump to create a mirror-list while a category is under discussion (or vice versa) cannot be allowed any time a list or category is put up for deletion so that all some editor needs to do is to create a mirror-list or mirror category making a mockery of the CfD and AfD process. Think carefully of the implications of what you did here and think of the consequences if every editor took it upon themslves to do what you did here. IZAK 15:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm somewhat confused by the wall of text above (ie the nomination). Is this article nominated for deletion purely on proceedural grounds, ie that it's been created in bad faith? --Dweller 15:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In response to

    "the point of putting that categeory to a vote is that the information does not deserve to be "preserved""

    ... I would say that you are quite wrong, IZAK. The point of putting it up for a CfD vote is to judge whether or not it is wrong for categorization. Some information is better suited for lists, while some is better suited for categories, that is why there are different discussion sections for each as each have different criteria.

Now, I suggest you curb your very uncivil tongue. The initial AfD comment and the "wake up" response are seriously out of bounds. Tarc 15:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tarc, when someone writes "I'm somewhat confused by the wall of text above" it is he that is being uncivil, so I was urging him to wake up and pay attention, and not to be lazy and read what I wrote. It's not a "tongue", it's a keyboard, by the way. I also understand what the role of categories is (but how they line up with lists is not always clear) but no editor should dash off and create a list while a categeory with the same information is being put up for a vote. Why is that so hard to fathom? IZAK 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I was uncivil, I totally apologise, it was unintended. The nomination is long and unclear, that's all... The nomination seems entirely proceedural, but the wikilinks you've posted above seem to be pointing to deletion criteria. I assume therefore that I (and others) should consider the AfD on that basis. I'll take a look at the links you've provided, revisit the list article and consider the AfD nomination on the basis of deletion criteria, rather than proceedure. --Dweller 15:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't worry, you weren't. And even if you were, it does not grant permission to others to engage in incivility. Tarc 16:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pardon me Dweller if I startled you with my wake up call. And Tarc, have you voted yet? IZAK 16:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chiming in to agree with my concerns about a lack of civility here. You just said that expressing one is confused by what seems to be large block of text is uncivil? No, I'm afraid I don't see that as such. I'm sure there might be other ways to express it, and some might be more polite, but as far as civility goes, that's within the realm of acceptable as I see it. It's not insulting to say the equivalent of "You wrote a lot there, can you simplify it for me" In any case, it still behooves on you, as the person responding to be civil, and perhaps explain yourself a bit better rather than take a position, which to me, seems rather hostile. FrozenPurpleCube 16:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The closest to a deletion criteria cited in the clarification by IZAK above is an essay on Listcruft. It's arguable each way whether this list falls foul of the suggestions in that essay - I'd lean toward it failing the suggestions. However, as it's a) a close thing and b) that's neither a guideline nor policy, I find it hard to rationalise deletion. --Dweller 16:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, I'm not seeing a reason to delete this article solely on its own merits, instead I see the primary objection being the bold decision to listify a category. That's not a convincing reason to delete. But perhaps the information might be expressed on List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States instead? That way all of the various justices could be covered. I suggest this because it is clear that [1] there are some considerations besides jurisprudence that lead to an appointment. FrozenPurpleCube 16:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hence my statement of " That way all of the various justices could be covered." which perhaps you didn't understand was meant to cover any and every ethnic group and/or religion for which justices of the supreme court can be established as being a part of. This would be the most inclusive way to cover it. FrozenPurpleCube 17:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. IZAK, your nomination was entirely procedural. You have been asked several times to explain what AfD criteria apply here, but your most substantive response consisted of a long list of links to wikiprojects and essays: no policies, no guidelines. Please could you take few minutes to explain concisely why this list should be deleted, rather than why it should not have been created; and explain what part of what policies or guidelines supports each point. Merely posting a catalogue of wikiprojects and essays does not explain what you think the problem is with this list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • BrownHairedGirl: Not conforming to procedures is a violation by definition. Do not minimize that please. Kindly re-read everything that I wrote in the nomination and carefully re-read the guidleines and procedures that I have cited after you had requested them, they apply to the totality of this discussion. One cannot do more than that. You are using tangential arguments to try to cover up your serious precedural error, while you have not cited one instance of a similar action, whereby an editor went ahead and created a list based on the exact same information that is in a categroy at the exact same time that that category was up for deletion. To repeat, by doing this alone, you broke Wikipedia:Consensus. As I have noted on your talk page, this is no less serious than is the parallel act of emptying a category while a vote is still in progress, the latter being clearly against the rules. I cannot be clearer or add much more to what I have said here. Let other editors who join this discussion judge for themselves, add their views, and vote their conscience/s. Thank you for your attention.IZAK 17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • IZAK, you have yet to cite any procedure which I have breached, and you continue to misunderstand that there are different criteria for deleting categories and deleting lists, because two categories and lists different (albeit overlapping) purposes: that's why there are different procedures for assessing them. However, if you still believe that I have breached a procedure, please take your case to WP:ANI.
        However, if you were right on procedure, that would not be grounds for deleting this list, which is in article space. You now appear to be saying that the reason for deleting this list belongs somewhere in the midst of a long list of essays and wikiproject pages: in other words, that for other editors to discover your intentions they should read several tens of thousands of words and try to define what you meant. That's not very helpful.
        The bottom line here is that you believe that List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices should be deleted from wikipedia. Do you have any objection to the content of the list? If so, please set out your objections rather than continuing to allege "sleight of hand" etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
      • Please remember, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy so references to violations of rules and procedures is less important than actual examination of an individual situation. Even if there were a clear violation here, I don't see that BrownHairedGirl's actions were a grave violation of any kind. Perhaps you might wish to consider a less confrontational approach? It would probably be a much more effective to discuss the merits of this page, rather than whether BrownHairedGirl's actions were appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 17:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mister.Core: The merits of the page are about zero. It serves about as much purpose as would a List of LGBT United States Supreme Court justices or a List of vegetarian United States Supreme Court justices which would, perhaps to some, be just as "valid" or "interesting" but would serve absolutely no scholarly or encyclopedic value, beyond maybe titillation and gossip for some folks. My concern is as a Wikipedian who participates in AfDs and CfDs which are all about procedure only (obviously we judge the content/s of articles as we read them to vote about them, but the nomination and voting process is all about procedure) and it is in that context primarily that I am calling attention to, criticizing, and objecting to the action, and particularly its consequences, that can be far-reaching. Imagine, each time a category comes up for a CfD an editor on their won decides to "preserve" that information by listifying it at the very moment the CfD for the category is taking place? This is no joking matter and no different than "moving the goalposts" and very troubling. IZAK 18:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not convinced, religious and ethnic status are quite important in biographies, and somewhat more common than vegetarianism or LGBT-ness, which if they do apply to any Supreme Court justice, probably don't apply beyond the individual, in which case listing just on that individual's page is enough. In contrast, religious and ethnic backgrounds are quite widely considered, and often the subject of articles like the one I referenced, and that of the others brought up by other editors. If you want to focus on procedures you can, but I don't think there's enough of a problem here to make that the concern over the page itself. FrozenPurpleCube 19:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First of all, I gather that there is a back-story of prior disputes involving this or related lists or categories, which I am not familiar with in detail although I have skimmed them now. I sense a level of unfriendliness that should be avoided in any Wikipedia discussion. On the substance of the issue, I recognize the delete-side argument that this an artificial categorization and that we do not list Justices by other religions or by ethnic groups, etc. Nonetheless, the Jewishness (and Catholicism) of different Justices has had a historical importance on the Court (more in prior times than now) and on the selection of nominees in earlier times. I also find it significant that when the Supreme Court Historical Society published Jennifer M. Lowe, ed., The Jewish Justices of the Supreme Court Revisited: Brandeis to Fortas (1994), Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the Preface and Stephen Breyer wrote the Introduction. I submit this suggests that this is not an artificial construct and that the list and category should both be kept. Newyorkbrad 17:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, what do you think of my suggestion of covering this information in the [[List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States? FrozenPurpleCube 17:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad: Writing an article would have been a better intellectual exercise with perhaps some meaning, but as I have illustrated having this list means that Wikipedia will become infested with junk knowledge, and in any case, see WP:NOT#DIRECTORY we don't need a list of half a dozen Jewish justices names. IZAK 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on arguments made above. Procedurally, I don't buy that this was improperly created, and would suggest that if that argument is to be made it needs to be supported by better, more specific citations. Second, essays are not convincing in and of themselves - they have not attained consensus support; I would prefer seeing a position based on guidelines or policy. It also appears as if the essays are not being read carefully enough for support here; for example, there are repeated cites to the essay that states that "lists should reflect consensus opinion", and a reading of that provision is clear that the point being made is that information should only be listed where there is consensus that the person listed qualifies (e.g., in this case, there would need to be consensus that the person is Jewish and consensus that they are a Supreme Court Justice). That discussion in that essay has nothing to do with when it is appropriate to create a list. As noted, this is "keep" based on the argument made above. If someone wants to make more careful and consise arguments, I am open. A Musing 17:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Musing: So according to your reasoning here, any time a category is up for deletion anyone can just create an identical mirror list, or the other way around, if a list or article is up for a AfD then a mirror category should be created in order to "Save the information" in the AfD? In that case, the entire purpose and process of nominating lists, articles and categories can (and will) be totally subverted by allowing anyone to go ahead on their own and create a replica of it in Wikipedia's other venues. And, if, the time comes when people really want to delete a subject they may sometimes have to go searching for both the identical list and category which a crafty editor may have set up to circumvent and put spikes in the wheels of the AfD and CfD process. IZAK 17:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Categories, lists and articles serve different functions and contain different material. For example, categories should not include subjective criteria and we need to be wary of overcategorization. Each of these concerns is specific to categories -- we cannot use footnotes or qualifications, as we can in lists and articles, and we have limited real estate at the bottom of the articles, so we have to be more sparing in our use of it. With lists, we do look to avoid the outrightly trivial, but there is not the same real estate concern and there is an ability to explain and footnote (if not fully discuss). What might be a trivial intersection in categories is interesting in lists, and so many categories that are deleted because the intersection is insufficiently important do get converted to lists. For articles, full discussion and an explication of multiple sides of the story is possible, and thus the relevant information appropriate to include is still broader. Thus, each discussion is different. Had another category been created, I would object, but it was not. And I would have to think about whether there is information that we wish to entirely keep off Wikipedia (other than that prohibited by WP:Bio); I don't know that there is anyplace to discuss information we wish to thoroughly censor from all forms of coverage. If you want to convince me, please feel free to look at the specifics of the guidelines and argue why this isn't an appropriate list. So far, I don't see it.A Musing 18:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • A Musing: Again, you are not paying attention to what I am saying. I am NOT arguing the merits of categories versus lists. The problem and violation I see here is that while a vote about the FATE of a specific category was taking place, an editor went ahead and "preserved" that category's information by "listifying" it. Is that allowable? Have you ever seen that done during CfD debates? Let me know when you can up with any examples. In fact I have asked for some expert advice, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Creating a list at the exact moment a vote to delete a category is taking place. Thank you, IZAK 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I believe I do understand you; you have cited a bunch of stuff for the proposition that this is not permitted, and I've found none of them convincing. If you can show me what, specifically, applies in those policies and guidelines, or find a new one, it might be convincing. But even if the CfD prevailed unanimously, I don't see how that would prevent the creation of a list or article using the same material. Again, you are welcome to convince me otherwise. And if a prevailing, full consensus discussion doesn't prevent it, why would a half-way through, still open discussion prevent it?A Musing 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would support either having a list of all S.Ct. Justices by religion instead, and leave open the ability of editors to incorporate all the Justices, or incorporating this information into one of the other lists of S.Ct. justices. A Musing 17:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTICE: See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Creating a list at the exact moment a vote to delete a category is taking place] where further clarification has been requested. Thank you, IZAK 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, fine list, becoming a good article. Cardozo doesn't seem to be in the timeline, but that's a reason to fixit, not delete the article. Only issue is lack of references showing that someone besides us editors is interested in this intersection of highly notable people, why don't I provide some. Nominator should be warned that it looks like he has put on the Spider-man costume and is approaching the Reichstag. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, and here I thought I was Superman? And besides, the Spidey/Reichstag thing is about those who are reverting pages madly, so it has nothing to do with this very focused debate. Digression, to Spidey-nonsense is not a substitute for substantive dialogue. IZAK 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See WP:SPIDER#What the...?. Please. You're typing madly, on multiple forums, asserting that no one is paying attention to you. Honest, we are. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excuse me AnonEMouse: Try to be accurate, ok. I am not typing on "multiple forums", you can see it all connected to here, and I am certainly NOT "asserting that no one is paying attention to (me)" -- can you show me one place that I "assert" your observation? Seems that it is your perception that I am perhaps doing so, therefore may I suggest that you adjust your POV of things and try to zero in on the actual debate. Honest, I can take criticism by now. IZAK 19:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no reason why we should be "categorising" justices by religion; that makes it an indiscriminate collection of information, which makes it listcruft. --kingboyk 18:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be if this were the first time someone was interested in this subject, (i.e., Wikipedia:original research) so I cited a book about the first 5 Jewish supreme court justices, parts written by the current 2, and published by the Supreme Court Historical Society. Not listcruft, notable subject for a list. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course now I see Newyorkbrad has already cited this same book earlier in this discussion, which I didn't see earlier in this huge mound of highly charged text. Sigh. I should have known. But at least I added it to the article itself, so I'm not completely useless here! --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as encyclopedic and historical. The religious affiliations of Supreme Court Justices, whether it's appropriate or not, have been factors in their selection and in analysis of opinions. IZAK should know better than to claim that CFD votes have overriding authority over the existence of articles on the same topic. (There's a long, long, long history of AFD kicking things over to categories and vice versa.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Dhartung: These justices have very little to do with Judaism as such. They are ethnically Jewish, and a few are even married to gentiles. But they are not deserving of special note as "Jews" any more than the Catholics and Irish-Americans who have reached that post. What matters are the political calculations by the President, Congrees, and other politicians. You also say that "There's a long, long, long history of AFD kicking things over to categories and vice versa" so could you please provide some examples where that happened at the very moment a CfD or AfD was taking place? IZAK 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a perfectly sensible article. Whether IZAK approves of the reson for its creation is irrelevant; it must be considered on its own merits.--Runcorn 19:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and I just noticed this article: Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States which discusses the subject. FrozenPurpleCube 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting: I'd never seen that article before. I like it; I may work on it some. It doesn't moot the usefulness of this one. Newyorkbrad 20:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AnonEMouse and Dhartung. It deals with a highly notable subject.--Brownlee 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above keep arguments, especially Dhartung's. Carlossuarez46 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that this was not primarily an attempt to save the information--userifying would have done that--but an attempt to compare the different approaches. One of the ways in which they are being usefully compared is buy seeing the reactions here as compared with those about the category at CfD, so in fact i thank IZAK for helping clarify this, and I mean it literally, not at all sarcastically,for it is by these discussons that we establish consensus.
What this establishes to me is that the information is much more usable and interesting in list format--but then I do like lists. I don't like lists with unclear criteria and random inclusion, but those are editing concerns. DGG 03:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MPerel, you've just cited a guideline for categories, not for articles. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Dhartung, the only reason this list was created in the first place was to escape any possible outcome at the category for this. Have you read what I said? IZAK 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral ...but...I don't think putting it in List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States is an appropriate solution. That article is already taking up a bunch of screen space and is in the 60KB neighborhood, so any other side features would probably get severed and spun-off into child articles. –Pakman044 08:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (new opinion given below) Carcharoth 23:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC) but ensure it is synchronised with Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States#Jewish Justices, and add the reference from this article to there. Also, to ensure lack of bias, reliable sources should be found for the notability of lists of Supreme Court Justices by other religions, and those lists created as well. Another possibility is to merge this article to the section I mentioned above. The current list is rather short and could, in my opinion, fit in the Demographics article, which is a better way to approach the subject. Oh, and if the result is merge, do not delete (use a redirect). Anyone who says "delete and merge" without realising that this contravenes the GFDL (someone above said that) should read up on page history and how we try and preserve it. Carcharoth 10:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a list with very well-defined inclusion criteria. Further, Brandeis for example is particularly notable as being the first Jewish United States Supreme Court justice.--Simul8 11:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The concept of the "Jewish Seat" on the US Supreme Court is a well established idea in the history of the Supreme Court (Google search for "Jewish Seat" "Supreme Court" -wikipedia). Although an article may not yet exist for the "Jewish Seat" it easily could and probably will. This list would be a fine adjunct to it, or could evolve into it. The nominator has not, so far as I can see, suggested a single article deletion criteria that is applicable. Dsmdgold 15:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dsmdgold: That is a good joke! There is no such thing as a "Jewish Seat" and if there can be one it's meaningless and only conspiracy theorists (or deluded secular Jewish ultra-liberals) would take it seriously. IZAK 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is not now a "Jewish seat", despite there currently being two Jews on the court. However, the seat held in succesion by Justices Cardozo, Frankfurter, Goldberg, and Fortas was known, informally, as the "Jewish Seat". (That seat is now occupied by Justice Breyer.) The term was part of the political discourse of the 1960s. I assume that you did not look at the Google search results I provided, I you did you would have seen that the is used by organizations such as the Uinversity of Chicago Law School, NPR, The Journal of Politics (link via JSTOR), the American Law Encyclopedia, and by Justice Ginsburg, none of which could considered "conspiracy theorists". Dsmdgold 22:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This twists "non-notable intersections" to breaking point - clearly this is a notable intersection.--Newport 19:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it seems that this article is not merely a list. (Such a list already exists.[[2]]) The article could and probably eventually will be expanded to cover other analytical points. For instance, is it civil or prejudicial to refer to a Jewish or minority or female seat? Do judicial voting patterns reflect such surface demographics? Perhaps source the notability with both the prejudicial-type media and the Jewish press on the other hand. Therefore, I would rename it: Jewish justices of the United States Supreme Court. Maybe it could eventually merge into a broader article on identity politics and the Supreme Court. HG 21:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, now I see and concur with Carcharoth's comment, above, and the need to merge or synchronize with the Demographics article. HG 21:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, I concur with your finding of List of Jewish American jurists#Supreme Court of the United States (that is a good find, don't think anyone has pointed this out before). I would say this list could be merged to that larger list, and the article bits of this list could be merged to Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States#Jewish Justices, if that makes sense? Carcharoth 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sounds good. Thanks. HG 00:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that this would be a "Keep" !vote for AfD purposes. A "delete" result winds up with a redlink. If the article is kept, then editors can use the regular editorial process to decide whether to split, redirect, etc. (And I would argue to leave the content where it is, but I could live with a redirect if I had to.) Newyorkbrad 00:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is nothing wrong with creatign a list from a cat being proposed for deeltion -- indeed it is a common way to prepare for a !vote of "Listify" at CfD. This looks like a reasonable lsit to me, particularly give the fact that the religion of potential justices was for a time a significant factor in appointment decisions, and that in particualr there was for a while a semi-tradition that exactly one Justice would be jewish. DES (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously...User:IZAK is a delete-happy user (for whatever reason); therefore, his/her edits and nominations should be watched more closely. This was a POINTLESS nomination for deletion, a blatant waste of everyone's time. Again, we should all urge User:IZAK to get his editing/deleting behavior under control a bit. --Wassermann 08:24, 5 May 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices&oldid=1085512070"