Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish chess players

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 of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish chess players

Delete this for the same reason the List of Muslim athletes is up for deletion; see its AfD page here.

The faith of none of these people had a bearing on their career as chess players, and using lists such as these to boost ethnic pride is contrary to the principle of neutrality central to Wikipedia. Pilatus 14:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not useful breakdown Dlyons493 Talk 15:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ridiculous -Doc ^ask? 20:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I know of champion checkers players who got their start in church functions. If there are cases of chess players who got into it in synagogue or yeshiva I'd say keep. Uncertain though.--T. Anthony 00:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there are cases of people who got into chess because of the attendance at a religious group's activities, then that belongs in their article. Putting them in a list with co-religionists who perhaps learned chess in the navy, at school, on a gay safari in the Congo, or whatever, tells you nothing. Would we stand for a list of people who learned chess in school clubs, I think not. --Doc ^ask? 00:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase because that's not how I meant it. "If there are cases of chess players who got into it in synagogue or yeshiva I'd say keep, under the understanding I mean restrict it only to chess players who started like that." I think learning from a religious institution would be more noteworthy then a school and I think religion can effect almost everything in a person's life. This is a very marginal possibility on that so I am not voting keep or voting at all.--T. Anthony 00:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absurd. Impossible to maintain. KillerChihuahua 00:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it impossible to maintain, or indeed any more difficult than many other lists? - RachelBrown 22:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If being Jewish had any influence on the ability to play chess, I would vote to keep. But it doesn't. D e nni ☯ 01:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a category that's practically identical to this. EscapeArtistsNeverDie 06:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some chess scholar presents us with the synagogue gambit and the yeshiva defense. Durova 06:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, about as useful as a list of Catholic sailors (which means: "I agree with the reasonings above). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that Category:Jewish chess players is up for deletion and it has been suggested the category be listified. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 16#Category:Jewish chess players. Hiding talk 17:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While the cat is indeed nominated for deletion, that nomination is going to fail by a large margin. So it's safe to assume the category will continue to exist regardless of the outcome of this AfD. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with all of the Wiki's features, but it seems to me that a category such as "Jewish Chess Players" should not be a category in and of itself, but an intersection of the "Jewish" and "Chess Players" categories. Is this a limitation of the Wiki software? If so, it is definately a feature they should add. --mdd4696 08:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct and is why it is, to me, prefereable to Keep the list rather than the category, which is up for nom again as part of an umbrella nom at CFD. Hiding talk 13:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews (2nd nomination), when if anyone delete, please tell my talk page. --Sheynhertz _געשׁ״ך 07:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The proportion of Jews among chess players is so high that there must be some significance. - Londoneye 18:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because category already covers it (the fact is notable, but category seems better mechanism). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. CG 19:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - RachelBrown 22:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Edwardian 23:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 72.144.71.234 05:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per cat. handling it. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LazarKr 07:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some relation can be shown between Judaism and notable chess players. mdd4696 23:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list would be easily generated once all the articles in it were tagged with categories. The reasoning behind my vote is this: Since this list is the intersection of two different lists, it can be easily generated once those single topic lists (List of Jews and List of Chess Players) have been created. Now, if this were a list like the List of Jews, I would've voted keep, since the article would be very useful when trying to find all of the articles listed on it for tagging. I would only vote to delete a single topic list after each article in the list were tagged with the proper category. --mdd4696 00:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant with category. R adiant _>|< 00:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Αλεξ [[User talk:Alex S|Σ]] 02:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a category, this is fine StabRule 23:38, 27 November 2005 (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.