Talk:Beyt Tikkun Synagogue

	California portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This redirect is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force.

This article was nominated for deletion on August 24, 2013. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on February 14, 2008. The result of DRV was Keep upheld.

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 February 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Delete[edit]

I've tagged this article for deletion. It simply is not notable and does not contain sufficient context to explain it's notability. Bstone (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been improved to the point where it asserts notability. Bstone (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"synagogue-without-walls"[edit]

I am removing this statement and the related reference and it's an article written by the spiritual leader and it's quite clearly not neutral. Bstone (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have anything to add to it, could you please leave the article alone for a few hours while other editors work to improve it? That's considered good Wikipedia etiquette while an article is on AfD. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I aggree with Malik, let other editors have a chance to build the article for at least a short time. Your opinion has been stated and noted. Thanks. Culturalrevival (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There was a good faith attempt to add references and materials to the article, but it violated guidelines and policy. Using an editorial piece from the spiritual leader and using it as a reference for a claim is clearly not proper, but letting it stay would improperly influence the AfD. Bstone (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: It's not an editorial. It's the description of the author of the editorial, written by the newspaper.
Don't be a dick. Two editors have made a simple request of you. Even if you were right and the source was inappropriate, is it impossible for you to wait a few hours before you delete it? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the inuse tag was added I have refrained from editing the page. You have called me disruptive and a dick. Neither is true and I do think you need to work on your tact, sir. Good day. Bstone (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PRIMARY VIEWS by Rabbi Michael Lerner is an editorial It's plainly clear both from the title PRIMARY VIEWS, the fact that it starts "I" and that it's by Michael Lerner that this is an editorial. As such, it's of paramount importance to state that this is an editorial and not an actual article in the SF Chronicle. Stating or implying it is anything other than an editorial is misleading. Bstone (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misrepresent the facts. The sentence in question reads "Rabbi Michael Lerner is ... rabbi of Beyt Tikkun synagogue-without-walls in San Francisco and Berkeley ...." It clearly doesn't start with "I" and it isn't by Michael Lerner. As I wrote above, it is a description of the author of the editorial, written by the newspaper, and not part of the editorial. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malik is correct. These words are not Lerner's but that of the San Francisco paper. This is an important point, and a fact. Culturalrevival (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intro is from the newspaper, but it is not an article, but rather a brief intro. That's all. It's not meant to be taken as an article but rather as a brief informative piece. It's not appropriate to use it in an encyclopedia as it's not an article, but rather an intro to an editorial. Bstone (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synagogue with political affiliation?[edit]

It seems to be that stating the political affiliations of this congregation is inappropriate and may put the in legal jeopardy with the IRS. See here for more details. Further, I am not sure if the political affiliations/backings are in the least bit relevant to this article. Thoughts? Bstone (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, political activities are not a problem unless a not-for-profit recommends a candidate or political party. Also, the Sheehan controversy is part of what makes Beyt Tikkun notable. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheehan visited their congregation once. They got some mild press. That's not enough to establish notability. The congregation itself has to be notable. Bstone (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bstone here, and 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) 21:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]