Talk:Shaarey Zedek Synagogue (Winnipeg)

Notable?
Does this really meet notability requirements? Or is it just a synagogue that exists? --almightybob (pray) 20:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you removed the nomination for deletion, but have not written why this synagogue meets notability requirements as laid out in WP:N. Please note that existence ≠ notability. This may well have been the first synagogue in Winnipeg, but that does not make it notable. --almightybob (pray) 21:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Care to AFD then?. We'll see what happens.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd rather discuss it first. Isn't that what we're meant to do rather than immediately resort to beurocracy?
 * So - how is this synagogue notable, other than being old? --almightybob (pray) 21:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Coverage in multiple reliable publications should suffice. Why is Holy Blossom Temple notable? They have significance because a] They were the first Jewish congregations of their given cities and important in early Jewish life in the cities. b] They had relevance in events which happened in the city history from secret meetings to teaching. c] They are mentioned in multiple reliable sources who believe the subject is notable enough to write about. I have not authored as many articles as I have without attaining some idea of what is notable. If you have a problem with an article on the first synagogue in a major city which is well sourced and written then heaven help you...♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, fire away then :) --almightybob (pray) 21:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bob, given the age, its first in the city status, the multiple reliable sources discussing it, etc., it's obviously notable. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"Conservative general by-law"
This article mentions a "Conservative general by-law" in the 1980s that the Shaarey Zedek synagogue is said to have been "subject to" - but that is all the information that's provided about it. It is trivial and self-evident that a Conservative synagogue would be subject to a Conservative general by-law, unless there had been a special issue or unusual circumstances - and mention of issues and circumstances is absent from that paragraph. I suggest that the part about the by-law should be either completely removed from the article, or an explanation given that's sufficient for "a gentile who wasn't there" (like me) to understand why it's been mentioned. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)