Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Beth Israel (Sharon, Pennsylvania)


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn by nom. Rkitko (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Temple Beth Israel (Sharon, Pennsylvania)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article does not assert why the topic is notable. I would have said this falls under WP:CSD, but it has references (even if many of them are not independent of the subject), so AfD seemed like the right place to take this. Every place of worship is not notable. Not every place of worship is notable. I see nothing that indicates why this particular synagogue is notable. Rkitko (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient sources referenced in the article to meet WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Question for you, then. I could probably find enough references (local history books, etc.) to create articles on every church building of sufficient age in the town I live in, which is probably a dozen or so. (Not that I'd want to...) I can't imagine any of them being notable in any sense. Are churches, synagogues, and mosques to be treated like schools in that nearly every one is considered notable regardless of a complete absence of a claim of notability? I could see keeping this article if it claimed it was the first in the region or metropolitan area, had a notable history, etc. But this article makes no such claim. Rkitko (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. An old American-Jewish congregation (133 years old!), first synagogue in Sharon, only one in Mercer County, sufficiently well referenced. Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest these things that make it notable be mentioned in the article! Rkitko (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)]
 * That would be fine, of course. But its absence from the article itself is not what we base an AfD !vote on.  wp:before makes clear that the nom is to do a check to see if refs reflecting notability exist, even if not reflected in the article, and if they do then AfD is not the appropriate forum (as AfD is not for cleanup).  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood, of course. I checked the refs and for other refs before nominating. Nothing seemed notable about it, unless you consider its age implies notability (I don't). What I meant is that if Jayjg thinks these things make it notable, it should be added to the article regardless of whether I think those things make it notable. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh -- I thought you were focusing on the AfD discussion. For purposes of the AfD discussion, whether it is in the article is wholly irrelevant.  If you want to suggest to editors that they should take it upon themselves to add refs to articles, that is a conversation more properly had (if it is proper at all; I can expect some salty responses) on their talkpage, as we should limit conversation here to what is relevant to the AfD.  IMHO, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. Interesting nom -- I was surprised to see it was made by a sysop, and was surprised as well that he would base his nom on an otherstuffexists argument.  Was also surprised by his blanket statement: "Every place of worship is not notable"; and can only assume that that is not at all what he meant ... he must have mis-spoken, and meant to say "not every place of worship is notable" ... which is of course not what anyone is saying.  Agree w/the responding editors that it meets GNG, for the reasons spelled out by the above keeps.... and we may as well snow this if it continues to be all keep !votes.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Two minutes of online research confirm that this was the first Jewish congregation in its area, and it has been in continuous operation for one and a quarter century. I invite Rkitko to write articles about all similarly notable churches in the town that he/she lives in, and I will vote to keep those articles in any resulting AfD debates.  This encyclopedia is not printed on paper, no trees need to be cut down, and we have room for articles about historic religious congregations of every faith in communities worldwide. Cullen328 (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, Rkitko's argument can best be described as WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, which has equal validity, namely no validity at all. Cullen328 (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And I invite you to include referenced info in this article mentioning its notability. In its current form, it lacks any mention of why it is notable. Is notability supposed to be implied by its age? I read through it twice looking for any scrap of information, but it's all dry facts without claims of why it's notable. And I suggest you re-read my comments above. My argument is not that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, but rather that the article lacks mention of its notability (I did tread close to WP:OTHERSTUFFSHOULDNTEXIST, but that's a different argument). I also don't necessarily agree with the idea that being the first congregation in the area makes it notable, even though I suggested it above. I was thinking more along the lines of the first congregation in Pittsburgh or larger cities. Being first can be a factor, as can being old, but it doesn't seem to me that this synagogue has any notability. (My local newspaper gets this wrong all the time by calling moderately old places or things "historic.") What, beyond being old, is notable about the building or congregation? Rkitko (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Or, if nom were to see fit, he could even model best behavior per wp:admin and withdraw the nomination, considering the (so-far unanimous) reaction to the nomination.  I understand that his nomination was completely good faith, but perhaps the response to it has informed his view as to what consensus would appear to be on this issue--Epeefleche (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nom was sleeping when all these comments came in or he might have withdrawn earlier ;-) I still have concerns about its notability as described in my comments above. The response has only pointed out what I already knew and I still consider the fact that its old to not be enough to warrant notability. And the article still lacks any claims about its notability. I'll continue to think about this today and may withdraw later. Rkitko (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kudos for handling our difference of view with such aplomb; well done.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:31, 5 April 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.