Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House


 * 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 - Keep - I added a expand tag to the article. Because it is a stub does not mean it should be deleted. Chris lk02  Chris Kreider 19:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This place of worship is simply not notable. --Eliyak T · C 22:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Comment no question that the article is currently nothing more than a phone book listing but there appears to be some coverage that's not limited to events held at the synagogue. Someone needs to check these before it can be determined it's entirely not notable. Travellingcari (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.   —Eliyak T · C 22:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Eliyak: It is surprising that in the midst of the intense recent AFD discussions such as at Articles for deletion/Adas Israel Congregation and Articles for deletion/Adath Jeshurun Congregation that you are now fanning the flames with requests for deletions of more synagogue articles. Can we request that the dust settle a little before throwing more fuel on the flames. It would be advisable to continue seeking consenus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism which you have chosen not to participate in but rather have just barreled on with these controversail AFDs. Please withdraw the nomination until such time as consensus is reached. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ORG. Most individual religious
 * REDIRECT to List of synagogues in Minnesota -- M P er el 23:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - but a volunteer should put up the right sources and kindly expend the article, thanks--YY (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Can someone explain to me why an article that's a stub, that in its current state is unarguably not notable, has to be picked on to be deleted? Why can't an "expand this article" tag be left for several months, have it posted on the Judaism portal or something, and only then have it raised as an afd? Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. IZAK (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment not speaking directly to this article since a) I didn't bring it here and b) I noted there might be sources but in general, I'm cleaning through a backlog from May 2007 right now of articles tagged for notability for almost one year and so many could/should have been PROD/AFD/Speedied that it's odd they've lasted so long. I personally believe an article should be worked on in a user's sandbox rather than posted before it's ready just for the sake of having a topic on [subject x] . There's no reason to create articles just because it's possible to do so, and I think it's better for Wiki as a whole to have quality, sourced articles on notable topics rather than 100s of stubs. I'm not speaking of synagogues specifically but rather lots of stubs whose topics are questionably notable. It's good to keep in mind WP:CORP Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. is my perspective. Travellingcari (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand as Travellingcari pointed out that there are many news articles. Chocolatepizza (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep because there is no "statute of limitations" on stubs and until such time as an editor can devote time to the topic and come up with objective research about this congregation. Then we can take it up again at that time perhaps. IZAK (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, that's not necessarily a valid keep reason. It can always be re-created when/if notable information is ready/avl. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 06:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and give a reasonable amount of time to expand. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2008 (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.