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 *. Muddled nomination, really it would have been nice if sources were added... but a reasonable argument was made for Bet Shira Congregation so I am going to redirect the other article there, and suggest sources be added. W.marsh 18:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bet Shira and Micah Caplan[edit]

Bet Shira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

As per past AfDs on religious groups and organisations, this one doesn't seem notable enough - no assertion that it's widely known outside the local area and/or Conservative Jewish community. Walton monarchist89 17:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE to User:Walton monarchist89 you should not have nominated these two articles together as one vote. One article is about an established synagogue and the other is about a new rabbi (how can you know the importance of either?) You could have placed a ((cleanup)) template on the Bet Shira article, and I have now WIKIFYd it. In future, when coming across an article relating to Jews and Judaism could you please place a note or call upon the many editors editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thanks. IZAK 12:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In actual fact I didn't nominate Micah Caplan, just Bet Shira - see my comments below. I agree that the two should not be lumped into one vote. Walton monarchist89 17:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 20:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Bet Shira is known as one of the largest congregations of Conservative Jewry in the south. The Rabbi and Shul are well known in South Florida, and many Rabbi's continue to stay in the area and lecture on the Sabbath because of the large crowds Bet Shira draws. Elliot Dorf, the member of the Conservative movement who wrote the argument for allowing Gay marriage in Judaism will be an scholor staying at the Shul in febuary. (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bet_Shira" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjx3 (talk • contribs) )
• Delete - there's no independent sourcing of this. The first person plural is a big warning. If sources are found and the article is rewritten, I'll reconsider my position. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete It is a first person NN advetisement for Bet Shira and for Micah Caplan Caplan should also be flaged as an article for deletion. And all of it was written by Mjx3 - who was also the anon quote above to Keep. Peacock Words and no proof of notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayrav (talk • contribs)
• Delete both. Most individual religious congregations are non-notable, and the Bet Shira article has no sources and is written in the first person plural, thus making it unsuitable for Wikipedia per WP:RS and WP:COI. Micah Caplan has been ordained as a rabbi for less than 5 years, thus making it unlikely that he qualifies under WP:BIO. The source used in the article about him only devotes 2 out of 26 paragraphs to him. Finally, the claim that he is "spiritual leader to the majority of Conservative Jews in South Florida" is impossible because there are 9 other Conservative synagogues just in Miami-Dade County, some of which are larger than Bet Shira, without even taking into account Broward and Palm Beach Counties. [1] --Metropolitan90 03:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As Metropolitan90 has explained, the relevent Wikipedia policies here are WP:ORG for the congregation and WP:BIO (and WP:BLP) for the rabbi. WP:ORG requires proof that the organization's activities are national or international in scope and/or that the organization has been a principle subject of articles in independent reliable sources. WP:BIO has similar requirements. The first step in meeting any of these requirements is the production of independent sources -- articles or similar in reliable scholarly or media sources establishing that the organization or the rabbi meets one of the policy criteria. None of these articles currently have any sources. Without sources, there will be no choice but to Delete. Supporters of this article should focus first and foremost on bringing in sources, if any can be found, and letting this discussion know about their progress. If this can be done, a rewrite reflecting a more neutral, encyclopedic tone that avoids smacking of anything that might appear promotional would be in order as well. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shira: I have Wikified the article. It is only a Wikipedia:Stub at this time, and as such all your citations of Wikipedia policies do not apply. Bet Shira is an important Conservative synagogue in Miami and as such it intersects with many other related subjects. If this synagogue can't get an article about itself then I would say no synagogue in Florida, or anywher in the USA would get an article. What makes a synagogue "notable" in the eyes of the world in any case? Size? Age? Membership? Or that they were all burned down in Germany on Kristallnacht? There are no real fixed criteria here so kindly stop treating this as if we need to expect synagogues to be like "St. Patrick's Cathedral, New York" to get articles about them, 'cause it aint gonna happen, the Jews are just too small a group. Soon editors will tell us that Jews don't deserve articles on Wikipedia 'cause the paltry Jewish population of 13 million Jews is "not notable" in relation to the world's 6 billion other humans. So I would say you need to watch out before you spout all those "WP"s. IZAK 12:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I didn't nominate Micah Caplan for deletion; I nominated Bet Shira on its own, and User:Jayrav added Caplan to the AfD (see the edit history). I agree that the two should not have been nominated together. I came across Bet Shira when I was newpage patrolling, and, based on Wikipedia policy (WP:ORG (and the proposed policy WP:CONG) and prior precedent, I felt it didn't merit inclusion in Wikipedia, as there was (at the time) no evidence that it was notable outside of the local area. Judging by the many Delete votes on the AfD, a lot of users agree. Although you've wikified the article, there's still not enough sources to demonstrate notability; the only external links are to the synagogue's own website. If, however, you can demonstrate (through the use of further reliable third-party sources) that the synagogue is influential and/or well-known outside its local area, then I will change my vote. I'm not saying it's automatically not notable, but at the moment there's a lack of sources to prove its notability. Walton monarchist89 13:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Walton monarchist89: Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You do not seem to understand the nature and workings of synagogues that do not function like churches and thus whatever is written in WP:CONG cannot really apply. It's apples and oranges. The Jews are a tiny people relative to the rest of the population, and only a minority attend synagogues today, so usually the synagogue is itself a reflection that Jews are notable in that locale from a religious and cultural perspective. Any synagogue represents the accomplishments of its membership (as well as its local and broader communities) at reaching a variety of notability criteria. This is a discussion that will need greater clarification. IZAK 08:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• SPLIT VOTE: (1) Keep Bet Shira as it's a noted Conservative synagogue and easily fits with Category:Conservative Judaism synagogues. However, (2) Delete Micah Caplan as he is not notable and fails WP:N. (It was a bad and unfair idea to combine these two subjects into one vote.) IZAK 12:28, 30 January 2007 (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.