Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agudath Israel Etz Ahayem


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 05:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Agudath Israel Etz Ahayem
Delete. Non-notable synagogue. Most synagogues, churches, etc are not notable. See Articles for deletion/Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church Omaha, Nebraska --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk  contribs   Count 02:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the following articles for deletion for the same reason. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk  contribs   Count 02:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * B'nai Avraham Synagogue
 * Baith Israel-Anshei Emeth Synagogue
 * Bnei Yisrael (Karaite synagogue)
 * Chizuk Amuno Congregation
 * Congregation Beth Elohim
 * Congregation Emanu-El (San Francisco)
 * Congregation Ohabai Shalome (San Francisco)
 * Congregation Sherith Israel (San Francisco)
 * Harford Jewish Center
 * Mount Zion (Synagogue)
 * Temple Tifereth-Israel
 * Yavneh Minyan
 * Delete all except B'nai Yosef Synagogue, on which I am undecided. Is the mural painter significant as an artist?  —Ogdred 03:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep B'nai Yosef Synagogue and Beth Sholom Synagogue, delete the rest. The mural painter seems to be notable, and Beth Sholom was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. The rest don't appear notable. BryanG(talk) 04:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Per various below, procedural keep all and renominate individually. I'm not particularly convinced of the notability of the rest of these articles, but a mass AfD is clearly a bad idea. BryanG(talk) 20:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Bryan G.'s move to Keep B'nai Yosef and Beth Sholom and Delete the rest. Perhaps it would be best to withdraw those two, which are notable on architectual grounds? Allon Fambrizzi 04:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
 * Keep all of these for now. Please renominate a few separately, but only after considering other and better options. This is not a good group-nomination. There are a few possibly "deletes" here, another few which I'd like to see kept, and a few which could possibly be merged. A few appear recent and architecturally undistinguished (B'nai Avraham Synagogue, building purchased 1995) or focus on seemingly non-notable minor congregations (Yavneh Minyan, Harford Jewish Center), and these should be nominated separately. Several of the others appear to be about synagogues or congregations from the mid-19th century and the oldest or one of the oldest in various American cities, such as Baith Israel-Anshei Emeth Synagogue (Brooklyn, congregation from 1856, synagogue from 1855 but originally a church and acquired in 1905; family synagogue of Aaron Copland). At the very least, the better-written of these articles should be merged into articles on more general topics such as the History of the Jews in San Francisco. I am sure such articles could be written. Bnei Yisrael (Karaite synagogue) is a rather pointless stub but claims that it is "the only Karaite synagogue in the United States" - that suggests just redirecting to the general article on Karaite Judaism, where this synagogue is mentioned, would be the best option. Then we have the one designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and the one completely covered with murals by Archie Rand — obvious keeps. up+l+and 08:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have withdrawn my nominations for Beth Sholom Synagogue and B'nai Yosef Synagogue per above suggestions.  --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk  contribs   Count 12:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, per Uppland. With all due respect to the nominator it looks as if this might need more eyes.  How about an RfC or a Wikiproject discussion for a group view on which should be nominated, which merged to their local community and which kept?  I'm not confortable with the fact that some self-evident keeps have come out in the wash here. Guy 13:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Guy's suggestion is excellent! This entire effort should be discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, with many well-informed editors, where it will receive the hearing it deserves. The world-at-large cannot take upon itself to act as a "tribunal" for which synagogues are or are not notable to Jewish people in the communities they live in. IZAK 09:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete all, now that the Beth Sholom and B'nai Yosef have been removed. Weak, because Guy's suggestion makes some sense.Storkk 13:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all except B'nai Avraham Synagogue and Yavneh Minyan. Bnei Yisrael (Karaite synagogue) is significant as "the only Karaite synagogue in the United States"  The rest have over 50 years of history (most significantly more) so it is very likely that there are verfiable sources related to them that are hard to find (there is a simmlar logic at a proposed policy at Schools). Jon513 16:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sure there are verifiable sources related to them, but they simply are not notable.  Tons of articles on topics and places with over 50 years of history have been deleted from Wikipedia because they weren't notable.  This holds true for these synagogues.  --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk  contribs   Count 17:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that they are as notable as a small village. Jon513 17:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What User:Danielrocks123 is overlooking is that most modern Jewish communities stem from waves of immigration that arrived about 100 years ago, so that 50 years is a significant time-frame. He also overlooks that each subject has to be understood in its own context, and that Notability is relative and a subject must be understood in its own context first. Not all subjects are the same or equal. IZAK 09:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep most per Uppland Hello32020 20:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all I detest group Afds and think they are usually poor, impatient, and lazy generalized cleanup efforts. Some of these need cleanup or more meat and effort, or maybe even deleting. Who's expected to comment on each one and make it a coherent discussion? --Shuki 22:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all Non-notable synagogues per nom. changes. Keep all, these should be listed individually as some are obviously notable. Arbusto 22:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all The ones I looked at are notable. --YUL89YYZ 22:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Procedural non-precedential keep all. The mass AfD is unjustified. It's quite possible all should be deleted, but we need to do it individually. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.  - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep All Most of these articles are clearly notable, and most of those make explicit claims of notability. Given the weight of worthwhile articles here, I say keep all of them. Alansohn 10:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think these should be brought individually, but keep all in the meantime. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all. I may be a tad biased here, since I wrote both the Baith Israel-Anshei Emeth Synagogue and B'nai Yosef Synagogue articles, synagogues I am rather fond of, and which were both nominated for deletion. But honestly, look at those articles - the oldest continuously operated synagogue in Brooklyn (over 150 years) is not notable? A world famous Sephardi synagogue uniquely and completely covered in murals is not notable? Even one I didn't write, the Beth Sholom Synagogue, which has has been listed by the American Institute of Architects as one of the 17 American buildings which are to be preserved as an example of Frank Lloyd Wright's contribution to American architecture, is not notable? Admittedly the last two have been removed from nomination, but still, this mass deletion request was not well considered. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all, and reconsider the deletions used as a basis for this mass deletion effort, as so few bothered to vote that it probably the decision was not based on a consensus. Most churches, synagogues, etc., are in fact notable - WP is not paper.--Leifern 18:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * keep all renominate each individually. Jay et al.make excellent points in that there may be some worthy of deletion, but many not, and lumping them all together only serves to obfuscate matters. Avi 19:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all First of all I am really aversed to mass-nominations, if you are not sure of the notability of a topic you go by a case by case basis, you don't nominate every single article in the subject for deletion. Second of all, I really do not understand the nominator's reasoning, most of these synagogues seem notable enough for a wikipedia article. This entire episode really reminds me of the hundred or so nominations by User:PZFUN.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for now on procedural grounds, per Uppland, Shuki, CrazyRussian and others. Just as a side note, if someone is around Brooklyn a photo or two of the murals in B'nai Yosef would be a great addition to the article, if that can be arranged.  6SJ7 19:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all per Jayjg. Reconsider on individual basis. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all per Jayj Shuki, CrazyRussian. Some of these certainly should be deleted and some of these certainly should be kept. This is not an effective method of doing this. JoshuaZ 20:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Jayg, Shuki, Crzrussian. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jayjg and others. I want to add that these synagogues are not just *well, for almost all( notable in and of themselves / these pages cumulatively document a historical geography of the Jewish people.  My suggestion is instead of deleting these articles - or even articles on Churches or lighthouses - we rethink them.  I used to be opposed to all "lists" because I thought what is the point of just a list?  But now I realize, as Wikipedia has grown and as our coverage has grown both in scale and complexity, that series of articles like these can fulfil a very valuable function.  A list of lighthouses, for example, is not just a series of articles on tourist sites or points of possible architectural interest.  They can provide a historical geography of maritime history, illustrating how the organization of regional and global shipping has changed over the years with new technologies, new forms of consumer demand, etc.  Similarly, I do not think a series of articles on "churches" should just be about buildings - these buildings illustrate important moments in the history of a geographically dispersed phenomena, it is a whole other way of writing about religion.  Now, there happens to be a fair amount of research in historical geography so I am not making this up, and I bet there are very good secondary sources one could draw on in using those articles to map out the historical geography of different religious movements.  I see this request for deletion as an opportunity to take stock of just what Wikipedia can do.  I urge not only that these articles be kept but that editors working on them coordinate their efforts to ensure that the articles (synagogues) on this list not only talk about buildings, but use these buildings to talk about where and when Jewish communities have waxed and waned.  The result of this kind of work on these articles (and similar series) can really push wikipedia further as a scholarly resource. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep All Keep separate articles for those that are notable buildings, or notable as per Slrubenstein above, and the others can be aggregated in one article such as Synagogues in San Francisco or the like. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep All per Uppland. Tom e rtalk  03:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To refine my perspective...I went with "keep all" in agreement with Uppland's recommendation, but I think Jossi actually offers a better proposal... While those synagogue articles that deal with congregations that aren't particularly noteworthy on their own, from an encyclopedic standpoint, specifically, they are noteworthy from the perspective of the history of Judaism in the US [or whereëver else, for that matter]...  If a synagogue isn't noteworthy on its own, specifically sufficiently noteworthy to warrant its own article, it is, more likely than not, sufficiently noteworthy to warrant mention and some coverage in a more wide-ranging article such as Synagogues in San Francisco, or...and here's what's swaying my perspective, Synagogues in Wisconsin...  Three defunct synagogues, and that's only the ones that come immediately to mind, in Wisconsin (in Madison, Stevens Point and Appleton are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, yet none of them, in my view, are sufficiently noteworthy to warrant independent articles.  I know there are 3 defunct synagogues in Superior, 2 in Sheboygan, and one in Ashland, as well... All of which probably wouldn't warrant mention in Encyclopedia Brittanica, but Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.  I think a failure to understand that concept is probably what prompted this nomination, especially where that concept butts heads with WP:N.  And so, I'm going to refine my opinion to keep all, merging into appropriately-named articles where warranted.  To clarify, I'm strongly opposed to this group nomination, but I think it has been a beneficial exercise nonetheless.  If my view holds sway, the aftermath would probably be most productively pursued at WikiProject Judaism...  Tom e rtalk  07:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all those that do not assert notability beyond "it has a rabbi and some communal activities, and one or two famous members". Inclusion criteria should be significant notability/notoriety. I agree with Daniel that synagogues sec are not notable, and agree with Jay that some may be notable (e.g. architecture, antiquity) - those should be kept. JFW | T@lk  06:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all, because Jews amount to only about 13 million people in the world and their houses of worship have always been integral to their Jewish identity, especially outside of Israel. Does User:Danielrocks123 also intend to nominate the thousands of articles about churches in Category:Churches and mosques in Category:Mosques for deletion? So why then is he picking on these articles from Category:Synagogues? His nominations here are fatally flawed. IZAK 09:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This nomination is based on a mass deletion of churches. see Articles for deletion/Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church Omaha, Nebraska.  Jon513 10:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Evolver of Borg 08:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.