Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South East London Synagogue

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. Withdrawn - notability established SilkTork *^YES! 01:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South East London Synagogue[edit]

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

Contested Prod. I don't see the notability of either the building or the congregation. The sources indicate that the congregation existed, but without any notability, and faded out through lack of interest. We don't have much guidance on religious buildings/congregations - WP:CHURCH and WP:Local are the closest we have, and both indicate that such minor religious buildings/congregations be dealt with in the local place article, rather than as a standalone. A redirect to New Cross where the building is mentioned may be appropriate. SilkTork *^YES! 21:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – And please tell me if I am wrong here. I understand why the editor nominated the article for deletion. Basically because it is now defunct. However, I view a Synagogue – Church or Mosques as more than just a physical building. But look at the name as a congregation of individual people that transcends just the building. If we look at it from that stand point, I see this particular congregation as the pulpit for the likes of Immanuel Jakobovits, Baron Jakobovits, who was the resident rabbi of the congregation, as shown here [1]. Does this make South East London Synagogue notable? In my eyes yes. However, not sure if that becomes inherent to the congregation. Happy New Year. JAAG^Talk 22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an early synagogue in the UK is notable enough. Article needs improvement but that is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the sources in the article (The lost synagogues of London) has four pages of coverage of the subject. Along with the coverage in the other sources that would appear to amount to enough for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:07, 2 January 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.