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 no consensus. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's note: There is no clear consensus to delete the article, but there seems to be general agreement that something needs to be done with it. Suggestions include: (1) creating separate lists by country/region; (2) moving to List of notable synagogues; (3) removing all redlinks; (4) keeping only those redlinks that are notable enough for an article; and (5) reverting to the April 27 version of the list. Given the range of suggestions and that each of these proposals was directly or implicitly opposed by at least a few editors, I do not see that this discussion produced consensus support for any the suggestions, individually or in conjunction. Therefore, their implementation is not within the scope of this closure. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of synagogues[edit]

List of synagogues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A list of all synagogues everywhere would clearly violate " too general or too broad in scope" in WP:LIST (there must be of the order of tens of thousands of synagogues in the world). A list of notable synagogues (where 'notable' is trivially defined as 'fulfils WP:NOTABLE and thus has a Wikipedia article') would be acceptable and, indeed, desirable; but such a list already exists in the form of Category:Synagogues. There's no point having a list article that just duplicates a category (the latter is in any case prefereable since it's self-updating as new notable synagogues are added).

Commentors may wish to refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of synagogues in the United States, a debate that's been going on for a few days; and also decide whether any decision made there and here should be applied to the similar list pages for other countries at which analagous arguments will apply. -- simxp (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The amount of redlinks shows this article does not qualify to be moved to the alternative article title. (Not that the nom was suggesting that) CitiCat 04:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Catergorize as that's the best way to organize this information. Separate lists by state/region would be acceptable as well. FrozenPurpleCube 04:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Already is categorized, with subcategories for both country and branch of religion; hence the AfD for this list -- simxp (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This list is not a good list because inclusion criteria are arbitrary, i.e. whichever synagogue someone puts there. However, I'd like to see the list preserved in a related WikiProject because some of those redlinks could become blue links. My alter ego has written a few articles on synagogues already. Placeholder account 05:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and retain only notable synagogues, this nomination is strange seeing that the nominator has not seen fit to contest inclusion of the List of Hindu temples or List of Mosques which also are categorized!! Most lists on Wikipedia are duplicated by categorization, so that reason is not valid. Most the red-linked synagogues are notable. Chesdovi 09:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

• For why I haven't yet nominated the Mosques list, Temples list, or any of the myriad other lists on Wikipeda that are either redundant, pointless, or unencyclopedic, see Wikipedia:Do you ever go fishing? (Representative quote: "No one person is responsible for weeding the whole garden, and it would be impossible for a single editor to try")
• Regarding "Most lists on Wikipedia are duplicated by categorization, so that reason is not valid" -- just because lots of such lists exist, that does not mean that they are a good thing, nor does it mean that someone took a conscious decision to have them. Possibly they were created before categorization existed, possibly the person who created them didn't know that categories could serve the same purpose. Even if neither of these are true, just because an article exists doesn't mean it should exist -- otherwise WP:AfD would be a rather boring place ("Well, I could point to lots of vanity/fanpages which don't assert notability; so your 'non-notable' reason is not valid")
• Regarding "Most the red-linked synagogues are notable" -- if they are notably by WP:NOTABILITY, then they should (or will eventually) have an article, in which case they will automatically be included in the category page. If there are any ones in particular you strongly believe are notable enough to have an article, Be Bold and create them! Best wishes, simxp (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Categories can't include page names that don't exist yet. Lists can. Redlinks are useful as gap indicators and as task reminders to create those articles. I have been using this list as a guide to create new pages. Chesdovi 13:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no reason why a form of the list as it existed before NYC2TLV expanded it should be deleted. Chesdovi 13:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If not, you might as well get rid of every other list on Wikipedia then. -NYC2TLV 14:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is that an argument? Malc82 01:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable and useful list; I also wonder why someone has decided to single out Jews again? Carlossuarez46 21:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That various editors don't shy away from using the antisemitism card against the nom for absolutely no reason is just disgusting. Malc82 01:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anti-Semitism is disgusting. The "antisemitism card", like the "race card" is concoction of people who would rather not have their motives questioned; they want to feel comfortable in their prejudices. So, if something seems unfair and one raises the question of "why", like I have done, and this generates a response of "using the XYZ card", how should one interpret that? I can assume good faith that it's part of the inherent WP:BIAS we need to combat around here, or should I take it as a personal attack? As for no reason for my inquiry: Let's see, there are lists of all sorts of religious buildings and among all those, which gets nominated for deletion? In this and another Afd. Was there any explanation of how this list differs from any of the others? nope. Has any been provided, nope. Carlossuarez46 18:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be quite frank, i find myself absolutely astounded -- and rather dismayed -- to find myself in the position of having to defend myself against accusations of having antisemitic motives for nominating this AfD (and defending myself from someone who themselves cited WP:AGF...!). If Carlossuarez46 genuinely wishes to know why I started out noming the Synagogue list: I came across the United States Synagogues list whilst browsing AfD, saw that it was duplicated by a category and thus voted for deletion in that one; investigated the category further, saw that it was just a subcategory of the more general list, and nominated the more general one. At the time, I was not aware that this list had analogies in other religions -- I assumed categories had been around for long enough that most redundancies had been eliminated by now. Another user mentioned that other, similar lists did exist (giving examples of Hinduism and Islam); but since the AfD was already partway though, I could not bundle them into a single nomination. Having two AfDs on similar lists run parallel to each other would be foolish, in case they came to different conclusions. The obvious thing to do was to use this AfD as a 'test case', citing the outcome of it as a precedent in the subsequent analagous ones (assuming it resulted in 'delete'; if not, AfDs for analagous lists would likely fail as well, so there would be no point in nominating them; giving another reason to wait until this one had finished). I do hope that User:Carlossuarez46 is satisfied by this explanation, and will not be demanding that I create a new Wikipedian category for myself based on this article. . . -- simxp (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to be clear: I was the one put on the defensive by your "card" comment. Without furthering the bickering, your explanation is interesting and I no longer question your motivation. On a constructive, rather than conciliatory note, however, did you consider closing this AfD and nominating the whole lot together so that they could be considered together? I think that if this were done, or if the others were nominated while this was on-going and pointing those AfDs back to this discussion, we would lower the likelihood of inconsistent outcomes. That said; I also think that all of them ought to be kept, the "notable" I believe is implied by custom and precedent and that a list of notable buildings of particular types are appropriate regardless of religion. We have a whole tree of categories Category:Lists of buildings and structures and its subs, subsubs, etc., in which such lists are housed, notable Churches, Mosques, Synagogues are no less worthy of inclusion than notable airports, museums, lighthouses, and shopping malls. Carlossuarez46 21:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • >"I was the one put on the defensive by your "card" comment"< . . .If you really do believe that User:Malc82 is a sockpuppet of me (or vice versa), it is within your right to put in a request for checkuser; but I give you my word that we're not. | Regarding AfDs: I wasn't sure that withdrawing a half-done AfD was a good idea, and having parallel AfDs leaves the question of what happens if onee goes delete and the other goes keep -- epecially as there would be no precedent on which to draw (wheras if we do it sequentially, then if this one goes keep we can just take that as the general outcome and not bother AfDing the others). | Re your last argument: lets take your first example, airports. From List of airports: "[For a list of airports] by country: see Category:Lists of airports" (Actually, this is slightly misleading, since some countries still do have their own 'list of airposts in X' in addition to categories; in which case, their delay in deleting the lists once they became redundant is not a reason for us to do the same here). Hopefully, eventually, we can unify on consistent use of categories among all articles in Wikipedia. From how this AfD has gone, though, I suspect that sentimental attachment to lists still runs too high at the moment for such an undertaking to suceed... -- simxp (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, not your card comment, Malc82's card comment, I should have checked more closely, but why did you so vehemently object to my response to him/her if you actually disagree (which it sounds as though you do) with his/her comment in the first place? Carlossuarez46 23:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The content I was specifically replying to (in both your original comment and your apply to Mal82) were your accusations of antisemitism directed at the nominator of this AfD (i.e. me), both explicit ("...decided to single out Jews again") and implicit ("...which gets nominated for deletion? [...] Was there any explanation of how this list differs from any of the others? nope..."). That's putting it in rather strong terms, and I'm certain you meant no ill will or intent, but that was (what I believed to be) the implication I felt I must protest against. | Re Malk's card comment, I felt his reaction was actually quite understandable considering the -- forgive me -- rather explicit way you expressed your grievence initially. -- simxp (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • You misinterpret my question which you eventually answered. If asking a question means that you are accusing something this hardly creating an atmosphere for debate. 18:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
              • I really don’t mean to provoke a lenghty (and off-topic) debate, but since Carlossuarez specifically critcized my comment I thought I should comment on that. You, Carlossuarez insinuated that the nom had a racist motivation to nominate this list. Such allegations, if neccesary for explanation, should be backed up very, very well or (better yet) altogether avoided on WP. But in this case there is no reason to think this was the motivation, especially since the reason how (s)he got the idea is pretty obvious, given the related US-synagogues AfD. Trying to shut up an argument by implicitely calling it’s defenders racists is "pulling the race card" (and yes, I'm aware that technically it's the "anti-semite card"). Cheers! Malc82 08:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I merely questioned it and then get slammed; is not the inquiry worthy of discussion or are we supposed to just let it go unquestioned? You claim something was an insinuation directed as a 3rd party; lots of assuming. As I said I merely questioned it; not the nom has clarified why we're here. It seems that the you were the one trying to shut down debate on whether the nomination of one and not all was appropriate. I'm glad you point to the race card which defines it as an "allegation raised against a person unnecessarily brought the issue of race or racism", or here by extension, religious denomination. So you attacked me because when deleting synagogues and not churches, temples, or mosques is necessarily an issue of religious denomination. Carlossuarez46 18:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While redlinks in lists with a clearly-defined scope can be helpful, this isn't the case here. The problem with notability-defined lists is always that lots of contributors will add one or two little items for the sake of completeness, but no one will be able or willing to check every single synagogue that is added (or present) on this list for sufficient notability. Apart from the country flags, this list gives no information that couldn't be just as well provided by categories. Malc82 01:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A wonderful list that is not readily available on the internet. Certainly notable if you ask me. -SpeechFreedom 08:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Synagogues_in_Germany currently lists 7 synagogues (well 6 really), the only one on this list is the Fasanenstrasse synagogue in Berlin, which was bombed down during WW2 and thus isn't actually a synagogue now. There might be other notable synagogues in Germany, not even counting destroyed ones. The scope of this list is much too broad and makes it practically unmaintainable. Malc82 09:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  12:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to List of notable synagogues, as suggested by nom. Many users are unfamiliar with the category system, and furthermore such a page would not be duplicated by the current categorization (in that it would centralize notable synagogues, which are easier to verify by footnotes in an article than in a category). --Eliyak T·C 19:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 22:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep very important and encyclopediac list. But remove the synagogues that there is no article for, and provide citations.--Sefringle 23:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Without the redlinks there is no point in keeping this list as it would be identical to the category. Malc82 23:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists would be better, because then we can provide a source and a brief history or description. Ultimately, this article should be kept, but rewritten.--Sefringle 23:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Many of the synagogues listed are the only one in that particular country, it would therefore present a problem, even if a page was created for these synagogues, whether or not to create a new category for just one article. Chesdovi 15:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment There are already a large number of 'Synagogues by country' categories with only one article. This is not a problem, as they are created automatically when someone puts a "Category:Synagogues in country X" tag in an article. -- simxp (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been discussion on Wikipedia whether a single article warrants it own category or not. Chesdovi 11:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to List of Notable Synagogues. The only useful fucntion of a list of this kind is to identify notable subject that have no article as yet. Otherwise there should be only be categories. This list has a mixture of active and red links. Whether the red linked synagogues are notable, I am not qualified to judge. List of synagogues in the United Kingdom should stand or fall with this list. As some one else noted, a similar USA list is currently being discussed. Peterkingiron 22:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of synagogues in the United States. Does not need to be renamed; a "List of X" article generally means "List of notable X" in the context of Wikipedia. DHowell 01:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, please note that if the red-links are non-notable, they were added mostly, if not all, recently by a single user. The solution to this then would be to revert or delete those which are not notable, not to delete the entire article. DHowell 01:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note this edit. That someone changes the original purpose of the article is not a reason to delete it. DHowell 01:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The "notable" part needs to be enforced, same as for lists of people born on a certain day. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reorganize We need to start thinking about whether articles can be realistically maintainable. A list of (potentially) thousands of synagogues isn't. It will be too easy for someone to slip a bogus item in without anyone else noticing. Suggest breaking up into something more managable, e.g. by country or state/province. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:20, 11 June 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.