Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyt Tikkun

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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beyt_Tikkun

Beyt_Tikkun (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

• Delete Does not meet notability requirements. Per WP:ORG,

Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.

This congregation is a chapter in the larger Renewal movement, has not achieved sufficient notability through reliable sources and, as such, needs to be deleted or merged. Moreover, there have been no reliable sources found in order to establish notability for this article. Bstone (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with Michael Lerner (rabbi). I looked for articles about the synagogue, and it is virtually impossible to find it mentioned except in descriptions of Lerner ("the editor of Tikkun magazine and the rabbi at Beyt Tikkun"). I don't see how it can satisfy WP:NOTE or WP:ORG. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Culturalrevival found some sources that seem to establish the synagogue's notability beyond its association with Lerner. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

*Comment Yes, I would be happy with merge. Bstone (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC) This establishment is noted itself more of a political organization than a house of worship, but hasn't done either notably. Delete. Bstone (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment Why are you voting twice? You already voted delete when you nominated the article above. There is not need for two votes. Culturalrevival (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Response I opined exactly once, no more. I withdrew my support of merge and restated my opinion of delete due to lack of notability, etc etc. Bstone (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep because: (a) It's no different than the over 200 synagogues listed so far in Category:Synagogue stubs, (b) the Jewish Renewal movement is relatively small and this article should be allowed to fill that gap, so it's notable as a synagogue of that movement. (c) Generally, it is not a good idea to merge articles about synagogues, which are institutions and outlive those who work for/in them, with personalities such as rabbis and spiritual leaders, especially complex ones like Michael Lerner who is invloved with many other broader issues. IZAK (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The synagogue has to be notable itself. The fact that it's a member of a of a small denomination does not in itself denote notability. It could be that the 200 other synagogues are there but are similar to the dozens of stubs which are not notable. Can you tell me why this synagogue is notable? What has is done or what distinguishes it as notable? Moreover, IZAK, in regard to your (a) point I urge you to view WP:ALLORNOTHING which states, "The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article". Thus, just because there are 200 other articles which are similar in content does not mean they lend an argument why this article is notable and can be kept. In regards to (b), you seem to indicate that it gains it's notability by being part of the Renewal movement. I urge you to view WP:ITSA which indicates that notability is clearly not inherited. If you can respond to my points from above I would appreciate it. Bstone (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Awaiting IZAK's response to my comments Bstone (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment We typically don't have articles on individual congregations and similar institutions unless they are independently notable. What makes this congregation notable? What are the sources for its notability? Compare, to pick an example out of a hat, the article on Etz Hayyim Synagogue, which starts with a clear notability claim. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

*Keep per IZAK. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Important as central synagogue of Jewish Renewal movement. No need to merge, article stands on its own as an integral part of this specific theological movement. Bhaktivinode (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I understand your feelings about this house of worship, but can you explain what makes this congregation notable according to wikipedia guidelines? There are no news articles about this congregation demonstrating it has not achieved any manner of notability. As such it does not pass the test for an article on this project. Bstone (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment More information has been added, with reliable sources citated, which further establishes notability for the synagogue (aside from its relation to Jewish Renweal and Rabbi Lerner). Culturalrevival (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Response The political views of this congregation in no way establishes notability. Having Cindy Sheehan attend one service and a related article does assist in establishing a notable event, but the congregation itself is lacking notability. What is the congregation itself known for? Is it the oldest one in the area? Is it a seminary? Does it have a unique architecture? Look forward to your response. Bstone (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: I see no evidence of notability, independant from the visit from Sheehan. This, in itself, does not make the congregation itself notable. To use an example, the President of the US visits many, many organizations, however, this does not make these places notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment A tag has been placed on the article by the nominator, "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. WikiProject Judaism or the Portal:Judaism may be able to help recruit one." This tag is not needed as the discussion is occuring among the project. Culturalrevival (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Response One might assume that putting up additional tags which request additional help for the article might be welcome by those who opine for keep. Color me confused by your rejection of it. Bstone (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Response As IZAK stated above, "This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions." Thanks. Culturalrevival (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• keep. Clearly notable as shown by multiple independent reliable sources in article. Argyriou (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Response There is no clear notability. There are reliable sources, true, but they demonstrate only minimal notability at best. One visit from a political activist does not confer notability. If the President visits a synagogue or church and inspires one newspaper article does it confer enough notability for this project? The answer is no as one single event, according to Wikipedia policies, does not confer enough notability to allow for survival of an AfD. Bstone (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Responding to every single keep argument will not create a consensus to delete. Argyriou (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply I am simply setting the record straight where people err. Bstone (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Now, you're just being insulting. Argyriou (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the importance is sufficiently demonstrated for notability, and sources have been shown to be available. DGG (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Response How? Can you please explain how it is notable? Yes there are reliable sources for one singular event, but it does not establish notability in itself. Bstone (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The principle notability claim given so far is "This is the central synagogue of the Jewish Renewal movement." Can we document that, perhaps from Jewish Renewal sources? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete While the synagogue is mentioned multiple times, I don't feel there is significant notability. A Google search turns up very few promising hits; meanwhile, the sources cited in the article are not sufficient. My main concern is that most of the articles, along with the New York Times and SFGate articles, only provide minor mention of the synagogue, and only when talking about Michael Lerner. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Looks very well sourced, although i can see why the media covers this more then other synagogues we have to live by our standards that an article if it has enough media coverage cannot be deleted.--YY (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep notable and well sourced. Ism schism (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, notable enough to be mentioned in several top newspapers, and the founding rabbi is notable as well. --MPerel 07:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Response The leader already has his own article. Notability is not inherited per WP:ITSA, which indicates that notability is clearly not inherited. The congregation is notable for one event (visit of Cindy Sheehan, a political activist, not a spiritual activist), which by wikipedia policy a singular event is not enough to maintain notability and the article must be deleted. Bstone (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for now - significant media coverage - large number of sources mention the synagogue briefly, and a few in depth, admittedly in relation to an event. Addhoc (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Establishes notability with the controversial, in-the-news technique we all know and love... _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 20:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject has received coverage "...by sources [that] address the subject directly in detail" "...in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Mostlyharmless' comments. Culturalrevival (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to meet WP:N. Orderinchaos 05:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with Michael Lerner (rabbi) and/or Tikkun (magazine). Being mentined by a bunch of sources doesn't make something notable. The subject must be the main aspect of the coverage. The coverage that this congregation has received has been through Michael Lerner (rabbi) and/or Tikkun (magazine). The congregation isn't notable per se. I find it most amusing that a congregation that doesn't even have a building of its own is considered notable by some editors. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A building doth not a congregation make. This is a radical group. It's like saying the Taliban are not notable because they don't have an "official building" to meet in. IZAK (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The singer is not the song. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

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.