Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synagogues in switzerland


 * 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.

Synagogues in switzerland
The result was   Withdrawn - Article considerably different from the article that was nominated Codf1977 (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

IP Contested PROD - WP is not a directory Codf1977 (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Article considerably difrent from the article that was nominated so withdrawing nomination, since no other delete !votes doing a NAC. Codf1977 (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Userify. Category:Synagogues in Switzerland has only one article in it. I presume that there's more than one notable synagogue in the country (notable as either an organization or a landmark building), but: no articles - no list in main space. Nothing to import into History of the Jews in Switzerland too. East of Borschov 10:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but reformat so as not to read like a phone book. Lists of buildings do not require notability for each entry as long as the scope of the list is manageable, see WP:LSC. There are also likely to be several notable synagogues on that list; the Swiss Inventory of Cultural Property of National and Regional Significance contains several synagogues.  Sandstein   11:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep User:Chesdovi was faster than me. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but redo as per others. JFW | T@lk  14:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as per User:Sandstein. sometimes a speedy keep is appropriate, to save the time we all waste on AFD's by users who apparently misunderstood the standard approach to a particular topic, like articles listing buildings in a certain category.AMuseo (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per short list selection criteria (History of the Jews in Switzerland says 38 synagogues in 2009). WP:LSC: "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources." This list will be far less than 32k and of interest to readers on its own and as an aid to navigation for the several independently notable synagogue articles that are likely to be developed. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Trim to a stub of one The criteria for keeping small complete lists also says we need reliable sources. this article has none. the article where the 38 is cited doesnt cite a source. The tags saying this article doesnt have sources was removed, when the PROD was removed. At what point do we start asking that an article show some sources for its content? the one synagoge that is on WP as located in switzerland isnt on this list yet. i say add this synagogue, remove all the others, then add the others back when citations are found, or if any of the target city articles mention the buildings already (hopefully THOSE mentions are sourced at least). i get that they dont all need to be notable enough to have their own article to be on this list, esp. as they are likely all historic buildings, thus there is no question that they have that minimal level of notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep' Buildings, especially synagogues are always notable. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I could not find WP policy addressing the subject of notability standards for buildings. I think we have policy which says that human settlements are almost always notable. I know that some buildings cannot be considered notable but maybe we do accept certain more permanent structures as automatically notable. If anyone can find support for debressers statement, either in policy or in a common sense argument, i would support keeping this article as it stands, and not stubifying it. My main concern is that we simply dont know if any of these listings really exist. but maybe thats not for addressing here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2010 (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.