Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Israel Synagogue (Asheville, North Carolina)


 * 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The result was Withdrawn/Snow.  brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Beth Israel Synagogue (Asheville, North Carolina)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG without multiple, independent sources. All of the sources provided are from the synagogue's website. Deletion tag was removed because "110 year old synagouge prima facie notablity", but per WP:OLDAGE, "Just because it's old, that doesn't mean it's notable." TM 19:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. Historic congregation, over 110 years old, and considerable material from third-party reliable sources has now been added. Jayjg (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What would these be? Every reference is to the synagogue's website except for One Jewish Asheville, which is affiliated with the subject, and the newsletter of another local synagogue, which isn't RS for notability. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Beth Israel is only one of a dozen members of OneJewishAsheville, and the newsletter is certainly third-party. In any event, the single most used source is the Goldring / Woldenberg Institute of Southern Jewish Life's Encyclopedia of Southern Jewish Communities, which is both third-party and reliable. There's also A Popular History of Western North Carolina by Rob Neufeld (The History Press, 2007). Jayjg (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, Jewish institutions have a very good habit of getting a lot of press in Jewish media and otherwise and from what I see this meets the GN because it has multiple reliable sources that focus in this house of worship.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep article uses multiple, reliable, 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Satisfies GNG. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As the article currently exists, the notability standard has been satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn but suggest a move Thank you Jayjg for the improvements to the article from sources I could not find. As it stands though, it is more about the Jewish population of Asheville than the Synagogue, so I would suggest we move the article to a more appropriate title and slightly refocus, but that is another discussion.--TM 02:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi TM/Namiba. Thanks for withdrawing your deletion nomination. As far as I can see, only two sentences in the article are about the more general Jewish community, and the rest is about the specific congregation. Jayjg (talk) 03:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep precisely because it is over a century old, in a country (the USA) that was only set up a little over two centuries ago. And now with all the excellent sources and references added to prove it. The nominator would have been well-advised to seek out some further input from experienced editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM because this type of nomination keeps on coming up and is shot down time after time. IZAK (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already within the nomination, but It's old is not ever a reason to keep it. A building around the corner from me was recently demolished because of safety concerns, even though it was 171 years old. Does every old building deserve an article? If you could, would you show all of us the guideline which states that? No, it seems some just like anything related to Judaism, so some create new guidelines to justify the existence of their articles.--TM 16:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't presume to speak for IZAK, but I've nominated quite a few synagogue articles for deletion myself, so it's obvious I don't simply "like anything related to Judaism". Also, there are general consensuses relating to deletion that aren't formally codified in the deletion guidelines; for example, there is apparently some long-standing consensus that every single high school on the planet is notable, regardless of age, size of student body, availability of reliable secondary sources, etc. Along those lines, there appears to be a general consensus that significant age does impart at least some degree of notability to a synagogue, despite what the subjective importance essay says. Finally, please note that this article (and similar ones) are about congregations, not just the buildings in which they worship. Jayjg (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2011 (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.