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. Let it snow let it snow let it snow. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eisenman Synagogue[edit]

Eisenman Synagogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think that this synagogue is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia ; The general notability guideline inclusion criteria aren't satisfied, as the "Significant coverage" isn't found in any of the sources provided. The only source that could be taken into account is seemingly a book by the daughter of the Synagogue's founder, Els Bendheim, as noted in the article itself, so I doubt it can be called a "third-party source" at all. Lippotaf (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lippotaf, I see from your edit history that nominating this article for AfD was your very first edit. Could you please tell us who this account is a sock of? --Oakshade (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Meets all the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY and in particular the General notability guidelines --Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Els Bendheim's book is listed as Further Reading, not a reference. Having no access to the references given, I can't check them out. However, as the place looks to have notability, I am going for keep anyway. I note that this nomination is from a new account. It is, of course, perfectly permissible for a new account to make its first (and so far only) edits in taking an article to AfD, but it is rather unusual. Peridon (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  So if I understand right, your argument says that because this place looks to have notability, it should stay? Ok- But I thought it was an argument to avoid Lippotaf (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is. Avoid is not the same as forbidden. But merely being badly referenced is not a ground for deletion. Peridon (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Even by the "sources provided" an entire book about this synagogue clearly indicates passing WP:GNG. Unless the publisher of that book is the synagogue, there are no independence issues. --Oakshade (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This book is an independence issue, as it was written by Els Bendheim, which is the daughter of the Synagogue's founder. But whatever. Let Wikipedia write about every synagogue in the world... Lippotaf (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this was self-published by the author, you might have a point. But KTAV Publishing House is a respected American publisher that's independent of the topic and has editorial control of what is published. That this third party decided to publish this book, written by offspring of one of the synagogue founders or not, is what's important to our guidelines. I don't know what you mean by your "Let Wikipedia write about every synagogue in the world" comment as it has nothing to do with the discussion of this topic. --Oakshade (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Oakshade. That book is published by Ktav, a significant Jewish publisher[1], and I don't see any reason it shouldn't be regarded as conveying notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an independence issue, as it was written by Els Bendheim, which is the daughter of the Synagogue's founder. But whatever. Let Wikipedia write about every synagogue in the world... Lippotaf (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there's a published book about it... -- Y not? 02:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Seriously? The only synagogue in Antwerp to have survived the Holocaust and the Nazi occupation of Belgium? A whole book published about it? Keep! Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Oakshade and Jayjg. Also, the book is edited by the daughter, not written by her. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, places of worship are notable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the reasons cited above within all the "keep" votes. Just what is the nominator up to if this is his "first edit" ? -- very suspicious and worrisome and therefore admins are requested to follow up with a WP:CHECKUSER of the nominator. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.