Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adas Israel Congregation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, nominator withdrew. ChetblongT C 04:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adas Israel Congregation

Adas Israel Congregation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete On hold Non-notable congregation, does not cite and references. Deletion is in order. I am currently reviewing the article. Bstone (talk) Bstone (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Withdraw Per WP:HEY the article has now asserts and achieved notability. It's not perfect and needs a lot more work, but it is to the point that I hearby withdraw my nomination for deletion. Bstone (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Keep. Until such time as WP:CONSENSUS is reached about what to do about such articles and stubs. Nominator has recently nominated a number of synagogue articles and stubs for deletion causing concern. Please see the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Deletion of synagogue articles. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: I'm sorry, but I did a few searches and did not find anything that would assert any notability of this synagogue. The article itself provides very little context. Unless independant, third party sources can be found to indicate some sort of notability, I don't believe this article meets our guidelines for inclusion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Hi Rjd0060: I got all my information only via Googling by first doing the search without inverted commas and hence found hundreds of hits and results for Adas Israel Congregation Duluth it's just that sorting it manually is harder, but it can be done and it yields good information. Also, to repeat, AFDs and prods should NOT be used as "scare tactics" to get people to improve articles "or else" -- that is a kind of a "law of the jungle" trap that as responsible and honest academic and intellectual editors we should not just avoid but also shun. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment (1) What is the basis for claiming this congregation is notable? (2) What are the sources to support it? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Shira, I researched the topic for a couple of hours using Google, as anyone can, and I also found some excellent sources now cited in the article. IZAK (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

*Oppose per IZAK Nsaum75 (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - I really don't get IZAK's argument. Consensus on deletions is made here. If there's a consensus it will be deleted, it there's not it won't. Jewish articles don't get special treatment. What is "causing concern" supposed to mean? On the merits here, the article doesn't contain even an assertion of notability and had this been a church, mosque, tennis club, or company, it would have been speedied by now. If someone can show some significance, then fair enough.--Docg 23:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Hi Doc: Had you been following the discussions about this over-all subject of deleting synagogue articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Deletion of synagogue articles you would have an inkling of my serious concerns. Allow me to repost my most recent explantion of why we are having problems here: "...you have not grasped where I am coming from in the present situation it seems, because my concern and focus is on BUILDING Wikipedia especially its Jewish content. In the process of building one needs "bricks" and "cement" at least. Some of the recent nominations to delete articles about synagogues run counter to the spirit and aim of building good articles. Many of these synagogue articles have been accumulated over years and they need to be looked at NOT as "nuisances" that need to be removed but as POSSIBLE building blocks, either on their own if at all possible, or as the parts of articles about the cities and communities they are in. Thus an article about a small synagogue in an isolated community may not seem that significant on its own, but it can and should be part of a larger article about [[History of the Jews in _ _ _ _]] see Category:Jewish American history by place as an example, or it could even be MERGED into an general non-Judaic article about the city or community it finds itself in under a sub-heading of "==Religion in _ _ _ _=="! These are all healthy possible options to have in mind and but not to be "trigger happy" by reaching for the "delete" options at every turn without considering the larger picture and the difficulty of gathering information for Judaic articles in the first place! These are some of my concerns as a Wikipedia writer/editor/contributor (who by the way also knows that at times some articles must indeed go, but it must be built on perspective and not just "fulfiling rules" that are a dime a dozen and don't help writing/editing/contributing in any real way.) As for what large company's and organizations are doing it mostly does not impact Wikipedia's Judaic content, except I would say with articles relating to Chabad that are flooding-in in greater numbers and need to be controlled and channelled. But this needs to be a careful busines and not a "shoot at sight" situation where an editor can look for all the rules around and shoot down stubs especially, something that is very unfair to all stubs. The mere fact that Wikipedia allows for stub articles to exist without any timeframe imposed on them, disproves the desire of the blanket deletionists. Not every article can reach full bloom with the slapping down of a template for "more information" and the like. Growth takes time. We are writers and editors first and being "deletionists and butchers" needs to be seen in context of growth and not just a process to fulfil rules that have nothing to do with writing and creating larger and better articles." IZAK (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

*Oppose per IZAK. Culturalrevival (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than just piling on, can you please explain why IZAK's opinion makes sense, since it seems to me to be in conflict with policy. And then can you explain why this article meets our inclusion criteria, since IZAK has offered no rationale. If we are trying to discuss this article here to reach a consensus, "votes" that effectively say there should not be a discussion here but only on some individual wikiproject, may well be ignored by the closing admin. Wikiprojects do not own articles. I'm willing to change my delete opinion, in response to good arguments, if people will have the courtesy to enter into the discussion.--Docg 11:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
As I have repeatedly said, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Deletion of synagogue articles and my new comment above. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non-notable synagogues do not meet the criteria for inclusion. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Question: How do you know that it is truly and absolutely "non-notable"? What about WP:BITE? IZAK (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
      • This article was created in May 2007. WP:BITE is about newcomers; and, plenty of newcomer's articles are of non-notable items that are deleted (sometimes even speedied). --MZMcBride (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Um MZM, writing an encyclopdia is not like making a cup of instant coffee. Many newbie editors are very nervous and tentavive and it may indeed take many long and slippery months to get proficient with everything we do here on Wikipedia. Also, most editors are very busy in real life, so they don't have time to fill out articles that takes hours of research, yet they may have good beginner topics for articles and we should not be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. IZAK (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The articles current content suggests a move to Jews and Judaism in Duluth, Minnesota. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Brew: Not necessary, and no need to move to an empty red link at this time because now that the article has more complete content and citations. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I still think that Jews and Judaism in Duluth, Minnesota would be a more appropiate name for the article (with some trimming, like what time they daven mincha). Temple Israel (Duluth), which is an afd waiting to happen, can also be merged/redirected. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Brew: Please do not trivialize or caricaturize this article. There is no trivial "time of mincha" information in it. What exactly would you like to write about any synagogue, or are synagogues not notable in your eyes? You seem to be in a hurry to push out the mention of synagogues. They are at least as important to modern Jews today as are video games are to the world's kids and there are thousands of stubs at Category:Video game stubs and no-one is running around screaming that they should be slashed like heck or be pushed into larger games or video articles such as Electronic games of children or Playing machines for entertainment. IZAK (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • NOTE: The article, now renamed Adas Israel Congregation (Duluth) to differentiate it from other similar sounding congregations elsewhere, is now a full article. It meets all criteria for such an article. It is requested that the nomination be withdrawn! Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Even after the reworking of the article, I still see no real claim to notability other than "oldest surviving synagogue," which is ultimately a false claim. There also has to be an oldest gas station, oldest grocery store, and oldest tanning salon, but those wouldn't rate an article either. Pairadox (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Umm, excuse me Paira: By comparing a synagogue to a gas station or grocery you show your utter contempt for Jews and Judaism for whom synagogue life and worship is a central part of their religious and cultural life. The existence of a synagogue in any community is a living testimony that there are motivated Jews and a vibrant Judaism in that place. You lack perspective and should apologize to members of the Jewish faith. Sadly, IZAK (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Muslims want to keep all images of Muhammad off of Wikipedia, but we don't craft our policies around that religion. This is no different. If anything, you owe me an apology for grossly misrepresenting my views and beliefs. Personally, I consider it a personal attack. Pairadox (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Nonsense! Do not throw in red herrings! This is most certainly not about Muhammad, or Moses or God. Muslims have lots of articles and stubs in Category:Mosques and Christians have lots of articles and stubs in Category:Churches and there are lots more in similar ones like Category:Religious places, Category:Religious buildings, Category:Religious sanctuaries and more (all with lots of stubs in them) -- thousands of articles and stubs in all -- unless you are planning on blitzing all of those and sanitizing Wikipedia from religion entirely. Let us know what your plans are, it should make for some good discussion with the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and the world will be most happy to learn in the media that Wikipedia has decided to destroy all articles that deal with religious places of worship and religious bodies! IZAK (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Article seems updated with claim of Notability being the oldest synagogue in its neighborhood with professional sources. thanks for whoever labored to save it.--YY (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per YY. Culturalrevival (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep clearly this synagogue has multiple non-trivial reliable sources which is the main test of notability. I will also note that many synagogues have multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, and just because these sources may be hard to find online does not mean that the don't exist. Jon513 (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article has been expanded significantly and now establishes the notability of the synagogue. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Article has been expanded to firmly establish notability. Congregation seems to have a unique place within the greater community as well having some historical significance to the U.S. state of Minnesota. Nsaum75 (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I tend to be rather skeptical about local history, but I think this article is on balance sufficient. It can be justified by its historic role or by its current role. The first congregation of a denomination in an area is generally notable, and will be written about in the standard histories--the first school in a city would be notable too--and, in fact, it would be just the same about the first tavern or grocery store. (But this is not really the oldest Jewish synagogue in Duluth. It's the only surviving orthodox synagogue except for a newly established hasidic one; its historic nature is in having outlasted or incorporated all the other orthodox ones. Indeed, the article never even gives the exact year of founding.) One could also claim it as being important as the major or sole traditional synagogue. There are two problems here: how far one divides denominationally, and how far geographically. The Hasidic congregation is also theologically orthodox, though a different tradition; if there were a number of Hasidic sects represented, and also a traditionally ultra-orthodox but non-Hasidic synagogue as well as this modern orthodox one, would they all be significant? It is not clear what other synagogues here are; a reform one is mentioned because it shares the building, the name of the Hasidic one is not given except by implication in a footnote. There might for all we know be a conservative one as well. The general information about the historic Jewish community is background to an article of this title, filled out from what amount to primary sources. But it's not clear how large the Jewish community here is, or was in historic times--there are no figures given. Nor is there much in the way of relevant specifics--It does not matter where the family of one of the founders did in Russia. Impressive as it sounds, I am not sure this is the way to write such articles. Besides the date of founding, there are other missing specifics; we dont know the name of either the first or the present rabbi,, the location, size, and date of construction of the present building, or just what the activities are besides the traditional services: the key sentence "This building is the hub of the Jewish community, with religious, educational and cultural events taking place in the facility" refers ambiguousy to both the reform and the orthodox congregations collectively. DGG (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Hi DGG: The issues you raise are valid, but they would best be discussed by the expert editors in each Wikiproject related to the religion in question. But editors who have no inkling of religion or may even be totally opposed to it, being atheists in some cases, should not sit in judgment whether religious bodies or buildings etc are notable or not. See WP:RELIBODY. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Please desist in the snide personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and ad hominem arguments. This is a neutral encyclopedia and we operate as a community regardless of ideology. I hope all voters leave their POV at the door when they engage here (although obviously you are unable to do that). Wikiprojects do not own articles. We don't ask the Pokemon wikiproject whether Pokemon articles should be kept, and the same goes here. In any case, Wikiprojects are not groups of editors who share a religion, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, anti-Zionists and Christians are all welcome to contribute to Wikiproject Judaism as they are to any other wikiproject. It seems to me that your case boils down to saying that normal community processes do not apply to Jewish articles and that people who say otherwise are anti-Jewish, well fortunately I know a number of Jewish editors who would disagree with that. You have added assertions of notability to the article, they are probably enough to justify keeping it, and that is quite enough.--Docg 09:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment Why are you making the accusation that anyone is proposing that "normal community processes do not apply to Jewish articles and that people who say otherwise are anti-Jewish?" Where is your proof of these accusations? Culturalrevival (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
          • [1] - and the ridiculous suggestion that atheists should be disqualified from opining on deletion discussions about religious organisations.--Docg 11:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Umm Doc, you are over-reacting and I do not see anywhere that I said anything you allege or that "normal community processes do not apply to Jewish articles and that people who say otherwise are anti-Jewish" kindly let me speak for myself and please ONLY quote in full context what I actually said and not what you think I said or what your imagination is telling you I said. Let me speak for myself as I allow you to do for yourself. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • IZAK, your comments to DGG are very troubling. It's implying that only a person of a certain religious faith can be any kind of authority on that faith. Perhaps you're very young, but that can be no further from the truth. There are experts on Christianity that are Jewish (see Hyam Maccoby for example) and experts on Judaism that are Christian (see John Strugnell). Religious faith does not prevent anyone from studying and being enlightened about religions that are not their own. --Oakshade (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I echo Oakshade's sentiments. I believe that IZAK's opinion is not entirely tenable here. Bstone (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Oakshade do not misquote me. If you have trouble with anything I said, please quote it in full context and I will either point out your misunderstnding or what it is that I stated. Thank you. Note to Bstone: I have no idea what you mean or what your intentions are by your statement. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nsaum75. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable as the oldest Orthodox synagogue in northeast Minnesota, with history tied to Jews fleeing Eastern Europe in the 1800s. --MPerel 03:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Follow-up with creator of Minnesota synagogues stubs: I have contacted User Grika (talk · contribs) who was the editor who originally created all the stub articles about synagogues in Minnesota that have now become the focal point of much debate, and he, as creator of the stubs has neither responded, participated nor defended himself in any discussions AFAIK. Please see User talk:Grika#Requesting your attention. Feel free to add your comments. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The sources used appear to be self-published, except for the one source that says it is the oldest synagogue in Duluth. I wouldn't consider that enough to establish notability for a Christian or Muslim place of worship either. Do we really need or want articles on practically every place of worship in the world? Karanacs (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Hi Karanacs: You are not correct. Three of the sources are reliable published books and three cite records from the "Duluth Jewish Historical Society of the Upper Midwest" that leaves four links to sources connected with the synagogue, like the Minnesota Jewish Community Directory. So your objections do not add up. As for worrying about "Do we really need or want articles on practically every place of worship in the world?" My response is: Why not? If they are notable then we go for it because WP:NOT#PAPER -- until such time as the Wikimedia Foundation feels things need to be split up, like when they created Wiktionary for words crowding things up or pics, see Category:Wikimedia projects. But until such time we just keep adding and adding, welcome aboard the Wikipedia article creation and improvement express! Please try to remember that while some things do get deleted, it does not mean that everything gets deleted. IZAK (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Not every house of worship needs an article on this project. Only the notable ones. This house of worship now barely eeks past the notable test. Bstone (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG and Nsaum75. This synagogue appears to have played a historic role in the region and its significance is referenced. --Oakshade (talk) 03:52, 19 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.