Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahavath Torah

Add links
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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahavath Torah

[edit]
Ahavath Torah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable building and religious congregation TM 02:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an argument for inclusion Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--TM 19:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting essay, but unrelated to my statement. Jayjg (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply existing for any amount of time is not an indication of inherent notability. It fails WP:GNG, as the only sources are from their own website and a local book.--TM 03:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You must keep perspective. A Jewish synagogue that exists for over 90 years in Christian America where Jews are a very tiny minority is notable. There are few like it. Please use logic and not just WP:LAWYER. Also note WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book isn't "local": Arcadia Publishing is a national publisher that publishes local history, which is something completely different. Also, WP:GNG is a guideline that is often helpful in general, but doesn't cover this (and other specific situations) well. That's why, for example, there are many specific notability guidelines for academics, books, numbers, etc. That's also why all high schools are considered notable (or at least have been in the past). Jayjg (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to address this specifically. The book you call "Stoughton History" is in fact a book called Stoughton (Postcard History Series}. The entry you presume discusses the synagogue in detail is in fact a single snapshot on page 12, of Stoughton's First Congregational Church, the caption of which says "The First Congregational Church later sold it to the Ahavath Torah Synagogue in 1958. The structure is now used for residential apartments." To suggest that this discusses the subject of the article in meaningful detail, or to imply that this constitutes a source heavily bolstering the notability of this synagogue, is mind-boggling.  Ravenswing  01:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a later book. The source I had in mind was the 2001 book Stoughton (same author and publisher), which has more information. The article now cites material from page 31 of that book. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see two editors claiming it is notable without saying exactly how it is notable. Has there been significant coverage in multiple independent sources? No, so it doesn't pass GNG. Is it on the National Register of Historic Places? Not to my knowledge. It is a blatant example of what WP:LOCAL refers to and your votes seem to indicate that you just like it, so it is notable.--TM 06:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two editors you mention do know something about this subject being long-time Judaic editors. Note that it does not have to be cited in the sources you mention. It is a notable synagogue with an even longer history. See also [1] that: "...Religious sources and media of notable religious organizations are perfectly acceptable reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here" and the same applies here. According to the criteria you cite basically no synagogues would qualify as notable. IZAK (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see a self published source, which obviously fails WP:RS. Other than that, I see a local book which does not in itself justify keeping. Just because it is a synagogue does not mean it doesn't have to pass the same standards as other articles. If you can provide other sources, please go ahead, but as it stands now there is no way it is notable.--TM 07:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take another look, since your last comment much work has gone into upgrading the articles and it now cites over 10 very good and reliable sources. IZAK (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: The article has now been upgraded with additional important WP:RS content fulfilling WP:CITE and WP:NOTABLE with over 10 new references that makes the importance of this synagogue very clear. The nominator is kindly requested to withdraw his nomination in light of the new improvements. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources don't prove anything beyond the notability of the Rabbi. They don't talk specifically about the synagogue, but only about the Rabbi. I think WP:NOTNEWS also now applies.--TM 08:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read more carefully. The sources clearly mention the cutting-edge (essentially controversial) political activism that is presently taking place at the synagogue itself, while the rabbi's role is much larger since he goes out to speak at events outside of the synagogue. IZAK (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The lead states why it is notable clearly. The only question remaining is "Is the oldest ________ in _________ inherently notable?". I feel that Izak makes a reasonable case that in this case the synagogue is notable. Joe407 (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like there is an electronic echo chamber on here. What claim to notability does it make other than existing? No serious editors (of which I have no doubt all three of you are) can really discount GNG and all of the other guudelines I've mentioned.--TM 13:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The arguments to keep are terribly threadbare. First off, the references to the rabbi are irrelevant, except to the rabbi's own notability, an issue not under discussion here. Likewise, that a number of speakers who've appeared there might be notable doesn't make it any more notable than any other venue; notability is still not inherited. Almost all the references in the article are not, in fact, about this synagogue, and refer to it only in passing it at all, a violation of WP:V and WP:GNG.
Secondly, Jayjg's startling implication that WP:GNG shouldn't apply because it "doesn't cover this ... well" is founded nowhere in policy or guideline. There is a curious notion found among some editors that (using this as an example of the syndrome) if few churches achieve notability through the GNG, the GNG shouldn't therefore apply to churches. Nonsense; it means, rather, that few churches are notable, and that the reliable, independent, third-party sources to sustain articles do not exist in such cases.
Thirdly, I do hope IZAK isn't seriously suggesting that only editors with involvement in Jewish-related articles have a voice when it comes to such AfDs. Were that accepted practice on Wikipedia, my retort might be that having been born and raised in, and being a current resident of, a city one town away from Stoughton, and living the next block over from what was the oldest synagogue in the South Shore until its closing last year, I am considerably better qualified to judge what is or is not "a big part of the history of that city and region" than someone who I expect is neither a resident of Stoughton, the South Shore or Massachusetts. That being said, if you believe it to be, IZAK, prove it. I challenge that it's either.
Hi Ravenswing: Obviously any users can participate in any AfDs. That being said, it is also true that every area of knowledge on WP has its long-time editors with proven expertise in particular subjects, as verified by their co-editors. Such opinions are important. I know nothing about neurosurgery or astrophysics so therefore I would think twice or thrice when venturing opinions in the presence of editors who over the years have proven they are masters of that field. So let the debate go on because I am obviously not placing any restrictions on anyone, just calling for a common sense approach to opening up the subject. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fourthly, that high schools have automatic passes and that there are specific notability guidelines for academics, books, musicians and the like are irrelevant; neither case applies to churches, as Jayjg and IZAK well know.
WP:V and WP:GNG are quite clear; they require reliable, third-party, published independent sources which discuss the subject in significant detail. Requiring that articles meet this fundamental standard is not rules lawyering; it is the core issue at stake in most deletion discussions. As far as I can see, the only argument proffered for retention is that this is the oldest synagogue in Stoughton. So stipulated, but so what? Stoughton is an average Massachusetts suburb; we're not talking the oldest synagogue in New York or London. There are numerous other churches in Stoughton ... Catholic, Unitarian, Methodist, Baptist, Episcopal. No doubt they're all the oldest churches of their denominations in Stoughton. Do they all merit articles by that fact alone? TM's right; that's nothing more than an ITEXISTS argument.  Ravenswing  17:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ravenswing, I find your comment confusing; if there are all sorts of cases that aren't well covered by WP:GNG, why wouldn't this be relevant? Why isn't it possible that this too is a case that isn't well covered by GNG? Now I'm not suggesting all synagogues should have Wikipedia articles; indeed, I've initiated the deletion of many such articles myself. But why wouldn't the fact that high schools are apparently exempt from GNG be relevant to whether or not some synagogues also are? Jayjg (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you're making a straw man argument; I do not, in fact, claim that there are areas not well covered by the GNG, and have historically been quite solidly against the premise that high schools should be exempt. That they are is due to enough editors claiming they ought to be to make forming a consensus to the contrary futile. No such pressure group exists to exempt churches ... and since you are not, by your own admission, claiming that all synagogues are notable by default, exactly what is the point you're attempting to make?  Ravenswing  01:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All policy on Wikipedia is "by consensus", whether or not it's reflected in a guideline such as WP:GNG. In fact, as you apparently admit, Wikipedia consensus regarding high schools is that they are all notable, regardless of what WP:GNG says. In other words, either they are exempt from WP:GNG, or WP:GNG does not reflect Wikipedia policy - there's really no way around this conclusion. My point is that this particular synagogue, almost 120 years old, the oldest in Stoughton, is, by that virtue, notable, regardless of whether or not WP:GNG comments on this issue (just as it doesn't comment on the notability of high schools). And please call synagogues "synagogues"; that's what we're talking about here. A synagogue is not a church, that's why English has different words for them. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't. Most of the google book hits are either a trivial directory listing or already in the article. Obviously it exists in a major media market in a western country, so there will be gnews hits. As for the article, there are still not sufficient, non-trivial independent sources to pass GNG.--TM 14:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is. The gnews hits are not to be dismissed, as nom suggests, because "it exists in a major media market in a western country". That's a novel argument for deletion that is curious, but not reflective of policy.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you make a policy-based statement rather than a personal opinion-based statement??--TM 01:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not notice the words "generate more than local coverage" in his statement or are you of the opinion that generating coverage is irrelevant to the question of notability?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:43, 3 October 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ahavath_Torah&oldid=1137545220"