Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation (2nd nomination)

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. Special mention goes to Bearian for a significant improvement to the article (see here; article is now nicely compacted, sourced, and demonstrates notability. m.o.p 05:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Survived an AfD a couple of years ago after the nomination was withdrawn. However, all I'm seeing is an unnotable organisation with a dearth of in-depth coverage in reliable sources, which fails the general notability guideline. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm surprised that the sources thrown up were blithely accepted as evidence of the subject's notability. Of the one independent source that isn't a broken link, the only mention of the subject is that the congregation's rabbi was quoted in a story - and as we all know, I am sure, WP:ORG explicitly states that quotes from an organization's personnel do not qualify by themselves as valid sources. There are no reliable, independent sources which discuss the subject in the "significant detail" required, and the Keep proponents in the earlier AfD (several of whom are veteran editors) ought to have known better.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  19:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because there are sufficient references and sources for this article, as in why the previous nomination did not succeed. This is a synagogue and it can only be notable as such in its own context. IZAK (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The previous nomination did not succeed because the Keep proponents ignored - or perhaps just never bothered to examine - that the sources did not qualify under any notability criteria. If you believe that there are reliable, independent sources which discuss this congregation in significant detail, what are they, please?

    That being said, "This is a synagogue and it can only be notable as such in its own context" is a curious phrase with no basis in Wikipedia policy or guideline. As you know, there is no presumptive notability for synagogues, and synagogues must fulfill the criteria of WP:V and WP:ORG in the same fashion as any other organization.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  02:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure why you're being so harsh. A synagogue is a quiet spiritual center that does not make waves. It is not an "organization" it is a place of worship where Jews gather to pray and to learn Torah at times, and as such the fact that Jews designate such a place and that it is recognized as such by its environment it is notable, especially if there are very few such places and they cite sources as this article does. Note, America is a young country, and Jews are only 6 million out of a vast population of over 300 million, so proportionately such synagogues are notable. One does not check in one's mind and rational faculties at the door when writing WP articles. WP does not deny reality either. That is why WP:EXPERT editors are so important in any field. Could you tell us what you would deem to be "notability" in any synagogue please so that this and other articles like it could be improved in a constructive manner? Thanks. IZAK (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I'd be happy to do so. What I would deem as meeting Wikipedia's standards of notability for a synagogue, as with any other religious congregation (since of course Wikipedia makes no unique exceptions to its policies for topics relating to Judaism), is meeting the standards of the GNG: that it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I'm unsure why you characterize this requirement of the encyclopedia as "harsh" - I would characterize it as fundamental. Neither America's antiquity or the number of Jews in the United States being legitimate factors in any such debate - not the least of which is that the subject of this article is not in the United States - do you have any arguments founded in Wikipedia's policies or notability criteria to proffer? Certainly WP:EXPERT - a proposal that was in fact rejected - is not one, which is curious, because I've seen you raise it before in related AfDs. Surely you aren't inferring that editors who cannot demonstrate expertise in Judaism (and, come to that, to whose satisfaction?) be debarred from AfDs relating to Jewish subjects?  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  10:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ravenswing: Thanks for your response. To reply: 1 I will avoid WP:LAWYERING for now and focus on a rational and logical discussion based on facts and reality the building blocks that precede any resort to citation of this and that WP policies, that I have done in any case. 2 The article does cite enough sources for a synagogue. Short of being firebombed or existing for a thousand years, almost all synagogues would not make it, so where does that leave us, a "synagogue free" WP? that seems counter-productive. 3 You seem to equate your own MO with WP's which is not the same thing. 4 There are many ways to build and write an encyclopedia and not even the greatest works of literature come out as finished products from the minds of their creators but take years to build. 5 Perhaps I should have clarified, but I cited the example of America because this AfD is one of six AfDs (a very higher number and very worrying) now on the go and they mostly deal with the USA. The case of the UK is no different, with relatively few Jews, and even less synagogue-going ones, as being part of the general population. 6 My own attitude is that I would never dream of sticking my nose into topics and AfDs etc that I do not edit in, such as in Christian or Muslim or Scientific subjects because I would leave that up to experts in those fields, but of course WP lets anyone move freely, but that does not mean they should lose perspective. 7 A better way would be to contact editors in that field, e.g. via WP:TALKJUDAISM in this case, and engage them just as easily as one starts contentious deletions that are bound to arouse fears and suspicions and poison the well of goodwill. 8 No one is calling for "debarring" anyone, that is a just a harsh term again, but common sense and courtesy means that editors should ideally respect others who may deal with other fields of knowledge that they are not known to get involved in besides for stirring up disputes and animosity through contentious AfDs. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This synagogue is an important part of Manchester's Jewish community. Furthermore, since the earlier comments above, a large number of additional cited references have been added. Davshul (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: Perhaps you are thinking of some other article? As a casual glance at the edit history indicates, no sources of any sort have been added to this article in eight months.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  10:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have taken "a casual glance at the edit history" and note that one new source was added and three sources were newly retrieved earlier today. Davshul (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong; no new sources were added. Today's edit corrected the citation on several of them, but added nothing new, and the sources remain the same deficient ones as before. The first source is a statistical table.

The second source merely lists this synagogue's address among the thirty-seven synagogues it identifies in the greater Manchester area - leading one to question upon what evidence Davshul asserts that this is a particular notable synagogue?

The third source has the single sentence "On 15th September 2002, antisemitic epithets were shouted in the direction of the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation in Manchester."

The fourth source has the quote from the congregation's rabbi which I'd mentioned earlier, in an article otherwise unrelated to the congregation, and as such is explicitly barred by WP:ORG as being a source pertaining to this subject.

The fifth and sixth sources are broken links, but if accurately quoted in the article, are about the congregation's former rabbi, not about the subject of this article.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  10:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To say that this synagogue is an important part of Manchester's Jewish community seems to be incorrect. The article states that Manchester's Jewish community numbers 35,000 people, while the congregation of this synagogue is 550. That seems to make it a run of the mill, mundane place, rather than one capable of meeting the notability guidelines. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability is established. Look at some of User:Jayjg's creations for examples of this, making seemingly un-notable synagogues into FA standard articles, (one of which featured on the main page yesterday). Chesdovi (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Izak et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basket: We get the point. You made your point. You don't like these articles about these synagogues, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please stop passing "judgment" on multiple users in a row as this may well be a violation of WP:CITESPAM and WP:HARASS. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Credible claim of notability for a major congregation, backed by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to be a run of the mill Synagogue that fails to have any specific notability per WP:NONPROFIT or WP:GNG. It makes no claims of notability in the article itself other than being the subject of being the target of antisemitic shouting (which was a passing reference of WP:ONEEVENT). The other two primary claims in the article are about the Rabbi, not the synagogue, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I also tried to find any evidence of it being a nationally famous local organization, but failed to. I have also found no evidence of particularly unique longevity, size of membership, major achievements, or prominent scandals. In terms of GNG, I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage for any general factors either. The majority of the "Keep" arguments above are comprised of WP:JUSTAVOTE as well and do not add comments in favour of keeping, with one other argument being, "This synagogue is an important part of Manchester's Jewish community" but no reliable source coverage to support notability of such a claim. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the claims, if backed up by reliable sources, would show notability. I'll take a closer look before taking a stand. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go with a keep and rescue for the following reasons:
  1. It's important because of the attraction it appears to have for notable hate crimes. Two good sources already in the article prove that there have been two incidents of Anti-semitism that affected the congregation: one in 2002 and one in 2005. I found a third incident from April 2000.
  2. It is a "provincial synagogue under the aegis of the Chief Rabbi."
  3. It is notable for its past rabbi. WP:NOTINHERITED has more exceptions than you can shake a family tree at. In fact, houses of worship are sometimes notable because of who was its incumbent (priest or in this case, rabbi). For example, the Church of the Holy Trinity, Philadelphia is famous because future bishop Phillips Brooks wrote O Little Town of Bethlehem there when he was its rector. In this case, The Rev Leslie Olsberg MBE, Heaton Park's late rabbi, shows that his former sinecure is notable. (By the way, in a piece of trivia, he was also the first witness called in a notable trademark law case.
  4. It is a fairly large sized congregation for Britain (see p. 21 of the census), and especially for Manchester, England.
  5. Epeefleche has already started a job of rescuing it.
  6. Very few electronic media outlets (TV, radio, Internet news) carry religious news today; therefore, generic Internet searches (Google, Bing) do not always give a full picture of a house of worship's notability. Editors should be allowed time to find paper sources as well. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a case where we need to use a good dose of common-sense. The notability guidelines were established to avoid articles being written on obviously non-notable subjects (such as my cat who is truly exceptional but not, sadly, of general interest:-)). They weren't designed to eliminate pages on clearly significant topics such as this, which is a subject on which many people want to find some NPOV information. Oh, and in case my comment is not considered policy-complain, yes, it meets WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article needs some work - although I have seen a lot worse - but there is more than enough content available in independent and reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep large, significant congregation. I have added information from architectural historians about the building.PA6-5000 (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no indication of significant coverage (mostly only passing mention), or of any particular claim to notability. Places where somebody famous lived, worked, etc are not notable, unless their notability is demonstrated independently of their famous occupant -- that's the whole point of WP:NOTINHERITED. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Fails notability guidelines. Basket of Puppies 16:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficiently covered in RSs to indicated notability under GNG. Nice work by those who have also added sourcing to the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's certainly nice padding-out work. But really, adding stuff about a violinist who was stabbed nearby stretches the limit of inherited notability. All of the references give passing mentions. They do not confer notability, and if anything their inclusion highlights the fact that there are zero decent references out there. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the refs are of varying values (and one can always pick on the weakest to make a slew of them appear questionable). But having looked at them in toto, I felt that (unlike some of the other nominations in this nom's supporter Basket's rash of synagogue-AfDs) there was no need for me to do more research, and pile on by adding even more. These collectively to my mind reflect sufficient notability for wp purposes. Apparently, about 2/3 of those who have responded to the nomination share that view. (this is better than some of nom's supporter Basket's other concurrent nominations, some of which have resulted in 100% disagreement ... something that one might think would give a good faith nom pause).--Epeefleche (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why you're having a pop at Basket. I started this AfD in good faith, and my opinion is still that it should be deleted. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if that discussion applies here, since I nominated this article for deletion, and I was unaware that any other synagogues had been nominated. Frankly, I care less. This is still an unnotable synagogue.Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. You'd have been better served either checking my edit history (and seeing that it was pretty random across quite a wide spread of topics), or finding sources for this poor article. By your rationale, any editor who states they are Jewish also has a conflict of interest. That is clearly nonsense, as is the suggestion that I have a conflict interest. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've personally found Dylan to be a good and honest editor, and have no reason to think him guilty (though others in this slew of deletions may well be) of an inappropriate POV driving his deletion nomination. (At the same time I agree with the strong editor consensus sentiment, running now by a 2-1 margin, that the article is a !keep).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 26 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heaton_Park_Hebrew_Congregation_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1086367275"