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 delete. Though my spider-sense detects a looming deletion review, the arguments to delete, in my opinion, outweight those to keep. The list is split by state so is in essentially the same format as Category:Synagogues in the United States. Mallanox 12:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of synagogues in the United States[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOT as a directory. Clarityfiend 20:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but rename "List of Notable Synagogues in the Unites States" and get rid of the obscure congregations. It would be ridiculous to try to list every synagogue in the U.S.
• Delete, but not because it violates WP:NOT#DIR especially badly -- it technically does, there are many valid reasons to have WP:LIST articles, and an argument could probably be made for this one -- but more because of the following sentence in Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Appropriate_topics_for_lists: "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value". A list of all synagogues in the United States would be either ridiculously incomplete or so huge it would be unmanageable -- at a conservative estimate, there must be at least ten thousand of them. An article I would support, on the other hand, would be a list of notable synagogues in the United States, where 'notable' is trivially defined as 'fulfils WP:NOTABLE and thus has a Wikipedia article' -- except that such a list already exists, in the form of Category:Synagogues in the United States! -- Simxp 20:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too broad. Punkmorten 09:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Kind of encourages non-notable ones for the sake of completeness. As mentioned above, perhaps a category is more appropriate, thereby only notable temples will be included. --Infrangible 13:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful and informative. --Nricardo 22:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the only merit in having lists of thsi kind is to identify articles that are needed. However WP cannot and should not have articles on every synagogue, any more than on every church: NN churches are regularly deleted, and NN synagogues should be too. The cateory should thus be enough. Conceivably, we might have a list of notable synagogues (i.e. those for whcih articles are needed), but I doubt it. Peterkingiron 23:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The articles purpose is not to be a database or to include all synagogues. It is mostly a list of notable synagogues that are already on Wikipedia. There are lists for other countries, this should not be any different. -NYC2TLV 03:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There already is "a list of notable synagogues (in the US) that are already on Wikipedia": Category:Synagogues in the United States. -- simxp (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Has Clarityfiend considered nomination for deletion for the following lists: List of abbeys and priories, List of cathedrals, List of Buddhist temples, List of Hindu temples, List of mosques? Chesdovi 09:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Do you ever go fishing? -- simxp (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: You wouldn't be implying that I'm antisemitic, would you? The reason I nominated this article is quite simple: it's the first such list that I stumbled across during my "random article" tour of Wikipedia. I invite you to examine any of my mainspace and reference desk edits for any such prejudice. In particular, you might check my work on the Raoul Wallenberg article. Clarityfiend 18:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are going to occupy yourself with finding lists to delete, I suggest you start with Tamil Nadu which has over 700 Redlinked and non-linked entries….. just as a fisherman prefers catching the largest fish! Chesdovi 15:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Very useful for research purposes. Heliumballoon 15:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:USEFUL isn't a real valid argument for keep. Whsitchy 20:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:USEFUL sometimes is OK. Let me quote: "...In spite of this, there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest (as in the New York phone listing example) or a matter of opinion as in the restaurant guide example. " This case is not only of use to a localized town. Its useful to the whole world. Religion is a big part of a culture and meaningful in one way or another to the majority of people. Indeed often people may be interested in some religious item in another country. This exist for cultural and artistic value as well as for religious reasons. Religion is also political and by having a list of synagogues one might be able to gage political significance. All around this list if a minefield for a researcher. And that is precisely the purpose of an encyclopedia. Heliumballoon 10:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete reform page with notable ones, otherwise it'll get too huge and unmanageable Whsitchy 20:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I doubt it could get that big, Jews don't even make up 1% of the US population let alone the world. -NYC2TLV 21:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Also, what's to prove what's real and what's not? Whsitchy 22:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment So we can have references provided. No need to delete an informative list. -NYC2TLV 05:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are plenty of lists like this on Wiki, they are useful and informative. -SpeechFreedom 08:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• both WP:USEFUL and WP:WAX are arguments you should avoid in AfDs, sorry. Malc82 19:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Could be changed to list of "notable" synagogues, but I would prefer sticking with the categories. I know the redlinks argumentation, but if something is notable enough to warrant an own article you shouldn't need a redlink to notice it. Notability-defined lists have a tendency to end up with large amounts of NN entries because no one wants to be the bad custodian who rigorously sorts out everything that doesn't fit WP:NOT. Malc82 19:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Simxp Bulldog123 22:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move - Maybe to List of notable synagogues in the United States or something, but don't use that title, it's not good. Anyways, it's going to need someone to sort through Category:Synagogues in the United States, and do some work with that. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Does not need to be renamed; a "List of X" article generally means "List of notable X" in the context of Wikipedia; the opening paragraph should be rewritten to reflect this. Redlinks should be deleted if they are not notable, articles should be written if they are. Also, categories do not serve the same purpose as lists. DHowell 03:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Going by the guidelinelines on lists vs. categories, the only advantage of lists from there that seems to apply here is redlinks -- but you're saying it should only have notable synagogues anyway, so even that advantage would be null (not that a list of *all* synagogues would be ever be manageable, of course): articles on notable synagogues that don't have a pages yet will have once someone finds a source on them that establishes their notability and creates it, surely. What other specific advantage of lists over categories were you thinking of that apply here? -- simxp (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list is better organized, geographically. While there are geographical sub-categories of Category:Synagogues in the United States, some are in the main category so their location is not clear. It may also not appropriate to create sub-categories that may only contain one or two items in order to make the category organization complete. Also, as long as the list doesn't get too big, the list is comprehensive and can be easily searched, unlike the categories. DHowell 01:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comments on the List of synagogues, and per DHowell. Carlossuarez46 18:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm surprising myself by voting keep on this. I do so with a few caveats. Lists like this should be aggressively pruned of read links to prevent bloat. Notable synagogues, (eg those having articles) belong here. Its kind of like lists of birth dates: only the notables belong. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commentators on this AfD may also wish to consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of synagogues

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.