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 no consensus, noting an inclusionist trend as to places and buildings, suggest an editorial merge nonetheless. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kehilat Chovevei Tzion - Church Street Synagogue[edit]

Kehilat Chovevei Tzion - Church Street Synagogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This synagogue is quite new, and generally does not have much notability at all. --Eliyak T·C 15:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but this synagogue is noted in quite a few sources, not all Chicagoan.[1] [2][3]. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The links provided seem to be Chicago based. They're also not secondary or reliable - a wp:org notability prerequisite. I also don't see how the provided links show that this synagogue is more notable then other synagogues, churches, and mosques, that have recieved some local newsletter coverage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brewcrewer: You use an illogical and unfactual argument when you say that "We can't have an article on every single synagogue, church, and mosque" simply because the Jewish population (at about 13 million) of the world population (over six billion and counting) is extremely tiny, while there are almost 2 BILLION Christians in the world and about one and a half BILLION Muslims in the world and Jews do not have, neither in numbers nor in proportions, that many synagogues compared to either Churches or Mosques. So while I cannot speak so much about Churches and Mosques, it is accurate to say that an active synagogue is essentialy the heart and life of a living, dynamic and notable Jewish community and to delete articles about synagogues rather than finding better solutions, like the ones I suggest below, to perhaps create and merge this into History of the Jews in Chicago, and not to lose the information started here. There is no other way to measure the presence and religious life of Jews in any place. IZAK (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that unlike churhes and mosques, all synagogues are notable. There's no such exception in WP:ORG. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brewcrewer: No I am not saying what you allege I am saying. What I am saying is that synagogues, by definition, are the embodiments of both Jews and Judaism in any place that they are found, and that while I agree that some synagogues may not be notable by Wikipedia standards (that have changed over the years and will no doubt keep changing with time) any editor concerned with Judaic topics should be sensitive to a broader perspective and need that Wikipedia has so that a way be found that the information that reaches Wikipedia about synagogues in particular (I am not concerned about other institutions and happenings so much) are not lost and should get incorporated into other related articles, such as "History of the Jews in ____" type articles and related topics, in this case Skokie, Illinois (perhaps over time there will be an article about Synagogues in Skokie, Illinois -- think forward and creatively here), because of their importance to the Jewish communities and their histories. IZAK (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This thesis - that unlike churches in relation to Christianity and mosques in relation to Islam, "synagogues, by definition, are the embodiments of both Jews and Judaism" and are "essentialy the heart and life of a living, dynamic and notable Jewish community" - is questionable. I find it hard to believe that a non-Orthodox synagogue that is attended only a few times a year is more connected to its Jewish community than a mosque, that can be attended five times a day, is to its Muslim community.
Additionally, I can't find any historical basis for this idea that synagogue articles are used as building-blocks. Neither History of the Jews in Cincinnati(first version), nor History of the Jews in Dallas, Texas(first version), nor History of the Jews in Omaha, Nebraska (first version), seem to have been created form any sort of merger of synagogue articles.
But putting the merits of your assertions aside, the issue here should be whether the keep !vote is in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There's no exception in WP:ORG for unnotable organizations that can potentially be used as "building-blocks" for future notable articles. Indeed, if there was such an exception, it would, for all practical purposes, void the whole wp:org notability guideline. Every unnotable organization should be kept because they can be used a building-block for a future notable article. Consequently, an article about the Slovakian Transsexuals of Rhode Island Organization should be kept because it can be used later for a more notable article about Eastern-European transsexuals or Slovakians in New England. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brewcrewer: The cases you cite from "History of..." articles proves nothing because those articles are bare-bones articles that have a long way to go before they become comprehensive, and reliable, histories. Your other point that: "There's no exception in WP:ORG for unnotable organizations that can potentially be used as "building-blocks" for future notable articles" is also way off, because there are exceptions, and they take other forms, such as merging articles into other articles, or seeking some input from another editor who may have an interest in this and could find a way to improve the articles, or simply by geting in touch with editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM and getting some discussion going, because eliminating articles about synagogues can become sticky. Also remember that not always do the rules of Wikipedia help, such as when one uses WP:LAWYER to judge and throw things out by WP standards when there other possible solutions. Finally, whether Jews are secular or religious makes no difference, because historically, Jews in their history since the destruction of the Second Temple, it was the synagogues that arose as the centers of Jewish life literally like "portable temples" as the Jews wandered in their 2,000 year long exile and it was the only insititution that can be found continuously without change, so that when looking at any synagogue, one must be cautious about the fact that it's not just part of Jewish history because it is Jewish history in the raw. That is why I go out on a limb when it comes to articles about synagogues, that there needs to be greater caution in dealing with them, which is not unreasonable. IZAK (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure where exactly you're getting this from. I know it's not from a dictionary, because I have yet to find one that translates "notable" as "established with reliable sources." Wikipedia's notability policy is that coverage in reliable sources is evidence of notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • General notability guideline. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The guideline goes on to point out that this presumption is rebuttable, but it has to be rebutted by policy, not because an editor doesn't like it. The notability policy makes "Notability" something of a term of art, with a somewhat specialized meaning different from the general dictionary one. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2008 (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.
More