Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyt Tikkun Synagogue


 * 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   no consensus. between keeping or merging Secret account 02:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Beyt Tikkun Synagogue

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominated for deletion in 2008, and kept, but there are not adequate sources about the Synagogue to support an article. Most of the coverage involves Cindy Sheehan speaking there, and is not about the synagogue itself. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - previous AFD at Articles for deletion/Beyt Tikkun. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to have coverage in independent reliable sources. I don't see what the problem is. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is this coverage of the synagogue specifically? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep meets GNG. -- Y not? 23:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is the coverage specifically about the synagogue that meet the notability guideline? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Aren't you tired of pestering everyone who disagrees with you? -- Y not? 21:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Only tired of evidence-free assertions. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Michael Lerner. until this community has a building, or a large organizational structure, AND more references about it separate from it being Mr. Lerner's project, I dont think it needs an article. all this info can easily fit into his bio. (and just in case anyone is concerned about bias, i am an admirer of Lerner, and have attended a service there-one of the very progressive jewish groups that you dont have to be jewish to appreciate or attend. its not a big group, at least as of that night.)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on the reliable and verifiable coverage about the congregation. As this is about a synagogue, and not a building, the lack of a permanent location seems irrelevant. Alansohn (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is that coverage? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep because the mere fact that this stub has survived so long and managed to survive both a Articles for deletion/Beyt Tikkun (5 February 2008) that was then endorsed at Deletion review/Log/2008 February 14 with the plentiful reasons cited both times then, is reason enough to keep this stub. Yes, it is only a stub but that means it deserves a expand or improve templates. But the problem is that there are so few willing and capable Judaic editors that it therefore sometimes takes sooo long to improve such articles (see WP:DONOTDEMOLISH). Still, no reason to do hatchet jobs on them, because they are encyclopedic due to the WP:RS and WP:N that is in them. IZAK (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So where are the sources? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Thargor: I appreciate what is eluding you, in this case, as often happens in synagogue-rabbi affairs, an actual synagogue happens to be "founded" by a famous person or rabbi and then the two phenomena (synagogue and rabbi) branch out yet remain connected. Thus, you will see that the majority of WP:RS in this article, and there are quite a few (I have just added a bunch) are also connected with the rabbi, and vice versa. If anything, a case may be made for a "merge and redirect" to Michael Lerner but that is not what you are proposing, and even so, because of the well-known popularity of this unconventional synagogue in the media since its founding in 1996, it's an argument for keeping this article. IZAK (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is a merge, that would be sensible. If the consensus is to keep, very well, but I'd like to think there'd be some sources for it is all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Michael Lerner. He is clearly notable; his synagogue-without-walls is not. I notice that of the four now five now six "keep" !votes above and below, not one of them supplies an actual source; merely saying "it's notable" or "there are sources" or "well known popularity in the media" does not prove notability. Of the sources in the article, three appear to be mainstream Reliable Sources, but two of them (SF Chronicle and HuffPost) are actually written by Lerner himself, so not independent; I can't evaluate the NYT link because it appears to be dead the NYT item devotes half a sentence to the synagogue-without-walls. The other references in the article are self-referential. Remember that "merge/redirect" is not a death sentence; the article can always be recreated, with its history intact, if actual coverage develops later. --MelanieN (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There is at least one source for it after Lerner left, so it justifies having its own article.  DGG ( talk ) 14:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per MelanieN. Clear content fork. This article has no meat and none has been forthcoming since 2008. Chesdovi (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - there seems to be a clear consensus that the content should be kept in some form so the question is where best to locate it. There is enough in the article for its own page and this seems the best solution, particularly since the synagogue is no longer dependent on Lerner. Having said that, compliance with WP:ORG is frankly marginal. However, though compliance with that guideline means we keep a page, failure to meet it doesn't mean the page should be deleted. As the preamble says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.". The objective of notability standards is to keep the obviously unimportant off the project. This organisation has enough significance for an article so, if required, it can be one of the "occasional exceptions". The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually there is no such consensus. Although there is a numerical majority in favor of "keep", not one of the "keep" !voters provided any actual evidence to support their assertions of notability. Per WP:NOTAVOTE the strength of arguments has to be taken into account in determining consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The consensus is that "the content should be kept in some form". That includes a merge which you yourself proposed. Only the nominator has proposed deletion - everyone else has suggested keep or merge. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2013 (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.