Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East London Central 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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Based on new sourcing and information, I am withdrawing my nomination. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

East London Central Synagogue

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sadly, I am nominating this article. I don't see any claims of notability other than it being in the East End. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment As the creator of this page's draft, I naturally favour its being kept, though I've never read the notability rules for religious establishments, and would appreciate being pointed in the right direction. My reasons for feeling the synagogue to be notable were this: London's East End was once a hugely concentrated area of British Jewry, largely constituted of first generation immigrants. There were at least 150 synagogues plus uncounted smaller shteibls. Of these, only three remain, the East London Central Synagogue the only purpose-built one. I believe the sheer fact of its survival gives it notability: it is one of the few remnants of physical evidence of a once huge community. From an architectural point of view, it is the only example left of the synagogues built by a community that had a different character to Britain's established Jewish community. Best wishes  almost - true 18:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep We should not be putting referenced articles this new up at AfD. Ever. If they're obviously not viable, we have CSD. Placing them into a deletion process which itself will need a period twice as long as the article has been around for is ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly a notable entity. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Per other keeps above. No way should we deleting this content even if worst case we felt best to merge it.  I've added a reference and image to help it along a little.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment For all those voting keep, where exactly is the notability on this article? This is not about the East End, this is about a specific synagogue and the article has zero reasons for notability. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need notability. It needs enough possibility of it to pass CSD.  If it still can't show notability in a week or two, then AfD it then.  But jumping on brand new articles when there's no reason to delete other than maybe they aren't adequately notable - that's not a useful or constructive action (see international press this week) and it's particularly discouraging to new editors who've had their first work canned like this. Let alone when there's already a project discussion going on about this very article.
 * Also, how far did you get through BEFORE before you AfDed this? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This article was AFC'ed, so it already went through some vetting. This article was also then discussed at JUDAISM where some feedback was given, but still the article shows no notability. You have failed to show a policy based reason for keeping. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There seem to be a reasonable number of references from independent sources to establish notability. Furthermore, for an institution this old, there are very likely plenty of earlier references which will not be online. Rathfelder (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic is authentic and satisfies the notability WP:NBUILD and is also an ancient building with good sources available.Vinodbasker (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)*
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Even article condition at time of AfD, only a couple of days after article creation, should not have been considered for AfD. The article already had in-depth references and more had been added since the AfD began.  The nom could've put a request for more sources.  AfD is a last resort, not for knee-jerk measures after a quick cursory look at the article.  --Oakshade (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I've continued to work on this, adding detail and sources, including a good estimation of its architectural qualites from Pevsner, all of which I hope support the various strands of its claim to notability  almost - true 12:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's in Pevsner, why are we even talking about it? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2018 (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.