Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of synagogues in Omaha


 * 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The result was Speedy Keep I have withdrawn the nomination --carelesshx talk 03:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

List of synagogues in Omaha

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Reads like a directory listing. See WP:NOT carelesshx talk 05:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a premature AfD. I just posted the article one minute ago, and I'm still working on the introductory sections. Thanks for your concern, but check the article again in an hour. – Freechild ( ¡!¡!¡!¡ ) 05:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. I've looked at it again, and the prose section of the article certainly seems worth keeping. I still think that having the list of synagogues and cemeteries goes against WP:NOT though (the guidelines are pretty clear on 'list of thing x in place y' articles). I would suggest that the prose part of the article be moved to something like 'Jewish community in Omaha' and marked as a stub, and maybe find an external link for the actual contact details of each synagogue. --carelesshx talk 12:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep & Change Title Yes, the guidline is clear: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not usually considered sufficient basis to create an article,. But, that doesn't mean an article can't contain such lists, just that such lists are not usually considered sufficient basis to create an article. Obviously, this article is now more than just a "justification" for the list. I suggest the article be kept as is, but with the name changed. Yes, perhaps to something like "Jewish community in Omaha"? (And, of course, reword the very first sentence accordingly.) 11:24, 13:32, and Pdfpdf 16:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Move (change title) to something else. Isn't the article really about more than a list of synagogues?  I'm afraid that, on Wikipedia, saying "List of..." (pronounced "listuv") is like yelling fire in a crowded theater.  Mandsford 14:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The content of the article is more like "Jews and their Synagogues and Cemeteries in Omaha". Which is not a good article topic. "Jewish Community in Omaha" is more like what's there. It certainly isn't a List page - it just has internal lists. MarkBul 15:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Would it be apropos to move the article to the new name and delete the AfD, or does an editor have to await judgment? Do I move it and keep the AfD? I will be bold and do the latter. – Freechild ( ¡!¡!¡!¡ ) 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved the article to Jewish community in Omaha and left the AfD. – Freechild ( ¡!¡!¡!¡ ) 00:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The article clearly provides adequate reliable and verifiable sources to meet the Notability standard. The rename was wise, as the article is far more than a list, and the "List of..." in the title is a deletionist magnet. Alansohn 02:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks good to me, it appears the nom's issues have been resolved and I don't see any other issues.  --UsaSatsui 21:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Article looks no longer like a directory and has significant sources and historical elements - it is a pass.--JForget 23:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: Has the nominator withdrawn? Because if so, we can close this. --UsaSatsui 23:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Doesn't look anything like a directory listing. A classic case of a nom choosing AfD of a notoable topic instead of WP:SOFIXIT, which would've been the more productive helpful thing to do. --Oakshade 01:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: You're being a bit harsh. When the nom placed the AfD, it was deserved. However, if he'd given the article an hour rather than 5 minutes before he placed the AfD, I doubt he would have placed it. It's more a "classic case of over-eager-editor placing AfD without working out what was going on". In his defence, at least he didn't put it up for Speedy Deletion, and he did leave a message on the creator's talk page ... Pdfpdf 01:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The clarification is valid. But yes, an AfD only 4 minutes after the article was created was uncalled for and it should've had time to grow. --Oakshade 02:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree with UsaSatsui. I have placed a message on the nom's talk page. Pdfpdf 02:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm happy to withdraw nomination, if that's what is required - the article is definitely better in its new home. I was perhaps hasty in nominating for deletion, but there were certainly problems with it at that time. Do I remove the tag now, or does an admin have to do it? --carelesshx talk 03:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Closing this a a speedy keep, since it's unanimous --carelesshx talk 03:19, 18 September 2007 (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.