Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Beth Israel (Lebanon, Pennsylvania)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 15:05, 8 August 2021 (Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congregation Beth Israel (Lebanon, Pennsylvania)

Congregation Beth Israel (Lebanon, Pennsylvania) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

WP:ORG WP:NOTE Non-notable religious branch. There's nothing special about this synagogue, all the references are to its own web sites, and there are few non-directory references in Google. John Nagle (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —dvdrw 04:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First off, I'm really impressed with Jay's synagogue articles. From my perspective, I look at this article like this: The architect of the synagogue, Percival Goodman is notable, and I've always thought that a notable architect's buildings were like a notable musician's albums- notable and worthy of inclusion by extension from their authors. Goodman did design some fifty synagogues in America which may be stressing this principle but I wouldn't mind including them all. On a quick search I found this book [1] where the author uses this synagogue as an example to illustrate Goodman's belief that the "[bima] was the precursor to theater in the round." I find that interesting from an art historical perspective. That's what I think, though there are plenty of other angles other than architecture from which to approach inclusion of this article. I can add some sourced info to the article tomorrow, but I trust Jay's judgment in starting this article and would like to see how he expands it. dvdrw 04:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to DVD RW's excellent points, I would note that although Conservative Judaism is the second or perhaps third largest Jewish denomination in the United States, with the vast majority of Conservative Jews living in the Unites States, there are, by my count, still only 668 Conservative synagogues in all of the country.[2] Most of these are of fairly recent vintage, since the United Synagogue was only founded in 1913. Congregation Beth Israel (Lebanon, Pennsylvania) is unusually old, being founded in 1907, and has always been, and still remains, the only synagogue in the Lebanon area. It's also notable because of its rabbi, Paula Reimers: she's a convert from Christianity to Judaism,[3], one of the early female graduates of the Jewish Theological Seminary, and she left Emanu-el in Burbank after a fairly notorious incident.[4] Jayjg (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm uncomfortable with a stub being sent to AfD a few hours after it was created. Give some editors a chance to build the article. It sounds like dvdrw and Jayjg have found some points that make the building and the congregation notable. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a notable synagogue and sources are reliable. It was founded in 1907 and it is the only Jewish congregation in the Lebanon area. I've checked references. The article easily passes WP:N. Jayjg has given enough reasons why this article should not be deleted. The article was created just few hours ago. It takes time to build articles. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, no valid reason to delete. SlimVirgin talk|edits 06:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because it is a notable synagogue for a number of reasons: It has been the one and only synagogue in the area of Lebanon, Pennsylvania since 1907, for over 100 years. (2) It serves as the focal point for all organized Jewish life in Lebanon, Pennsylvania and nearby surroundings. (3) Such synagogues are the only way to note and study the history of the Jewish people in local and regional communities. (4) Its rabbis have played an activist role in American politics and have been noted as such. (5) It is now an expanded article with many reliable sources quoted. (6) The nominator is being hasty and is probably in violation of WP:DEMOLISH, by not giving its creator more reasonable notice and time to work on it. IZAK (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kommentar Please do not make dire pronouncements that someone is in violation of an ESSAY. Edison (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Edison: Hmm, I don't see why you use the word "dire", all I said was that the nominator was "...probably in violation of WP:DEMOLISH..." (also note the use of the word "probably" to give him the benefit of the doubt as per WP:AGF) in nominating this article within hours of its creation while it was a legitmate stub. And kindly note, it is widespread common practice to cite essays, I was NOT the creator of WP:DEMOLISH but I do find it useful in making a point, and many more of them are well known and useful, such as WP:SPIDER and others that help creating a framework for dialogue rather than talking at cross-purposes. So please do not threaten me with your dire pronouncements either. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: The article has now been substantially expanded and the nominator is respectfully requested to withdraw his nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Slrubenstein | Talk 10:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although the article now has 24 references, few, if any, of them meet the WP:NOTE criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Going down the list, references 1,3,4,5, and 6 all point to the organization's web site, so they don't confer notability. Reference 2, re Percival Goodman, is just a one-line mention of the architect's involvement in the building ("a barn-style white building"). There's no indication of architectural notability; it's not a listed building. References 7 and 8 are routine bios of people associated with the organization, not published by a major source. Reference 9 is a letter signed by hundreds of clergy. Reference 10 has a one-line reference to rabbi Paula Reimer, but it's not about her. (She herself might be newsworthy, from the "Israel flag incident" in Berkeley, as Jayjg (talk · contribs) mentions, but that was before she went to Lebanon.) Reference 11 is by Paula Reimer, so that's not an independent source. Reference 12 is from the Dallas Morning News, but it's about Capitol Ministries and doesn't mention this synagogue or Paula Reimer at all. Reference 13 is Capitol Ministries itself. Reference 14 is a duplicate of reference 11. Reference 15 is a one-line mention in a blog of Paula Reimer quoting someone else. Reference 16 is a brief link to a publication by Paula Reimer, and reference 17 is that publication. Reference 18 is a brief bio of Paula Reimer because she does some part-time work at a local college. References 19-24 are to brief notes about members of the synagogue who did something marginally notable, including publishing a cookbook.
So after all this effort to pad out the references, we really don't have notability. It's striking that all this effort to find notability produced so little. It just seems to be a nice little synagogue that's been in existence for a century without doing anything very notable. That's very small-town America. --John Nagle (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "all this effort". I've added material from another source. As for WP:NOTE, it's generally a reasonable enough guideline, but doesn't really work well in this kind of situation, as it doesn't really deal with synagogues. Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Nagle: You are coming at this from the wrong perspective. All of Judaism and most of the nitty-gritty of Jewish history for the last 2,000 years is based precisely on these kinds of "nice little non-notable synagogue(s)" and just the mere fact that this one has lasted so long, over one hundred years, is in itself a notable fact by any standard anyhow it has other factors making it notable that you are now deliberately ignoring and even denigrating it seems. Also, user Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) had once noted [5] in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Dov Keller that: "...Religious sources and media of notable religious organizations are perfectly acceptable reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here. There is no problem I can see that can justify a delete vote..." and the same applies here." Hope this helps, IZAK (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it shocking that Izak would suggest that religious congregations of different faiths be judged by different notability standards: that a Jewish congregation which existed for 100 years is presumed to be more notable than a Christian congregation which existed for the same period. Edison (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a proposal in 2007 to give churches a presumption of notability (see Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations)), something Wikipedia does for secondary schools. It was rejected. So there is no special case for churches, and policy remains WP:NOTE and WP:ORG: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." --John Nagle (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nagle: Your argument needs to be based on reality. Here are a few points to ponder: (1) While the Jewish population of the world today is a little over 13 million, with perhaps only about 20% of that number actively connected with any religious and synagogue life, on the other hand there are over two billion Christians in the world so that therefore (2) while the two religions, may have have equal spiritual significance, they are vastly different in numbers of adherents and related instutions. Thus, (3) while one may be able to trim back Christian institutions and there will still be huge amounts that get local media coverage, the amount of synagogues are much, much fewer and their notability arises from the fact that they serve as they do for the much smaller Jewish population. (4) You are also downgrading significant facts because noone is foisting an unkown synagogue that has never been written about in any way here, and that with at least a dozen mentions in local Jewish newspapers, websites and in some books, the synagogue is notable in Jewish life. (5) Your other note about the rabbis and the synagogues being different, in this case, while the rabbis have done some notable things they should not be in separate articles, in fact the precedent has been not to create separate articles for clergy or personalities if they can and should be part of the institutions they head. (6) It is very subjective for you to judge the sources as "trivial" when quite a number of experienced Judaic editors feel that the sources in this article are more than sufficient to meet the threshold requirements of WP:RS and WP:CITE. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individual religious congregations and their buildings are not inherently notable. Claiming this one is notable as the oldest (or only one) of its type in a small town of 24,000 is as unconvincing as an elementary school or club being notable because it is the oldest (or only) one in its small town. 1907 is not that long ago, and we have deleted articles about a great many religious congregations far older. Per John Nagle's analysis, the refs which have been added fail to satisfy WP:N. They are either not independent of the subject, or do not have Congregation Beth Israel as a main subject and many only make passing mention. A passing reference in a book about the architect does not show that this building itself is notable or important in architectural history. Edison (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar. We have many articles about buildings not on the Register, which normally has a 50-year cutoff point for listings. There's no work by Cesar Pelli on the National Register, yet we have many articles about his buildings because he's a prominent and notable contemporary architect. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case anyone's confused, I'm voting keep. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As others mention, it's hardly reasonable to launch a delete campaign a few hours after the article is first posted; while some of the references are a bit overreaching I think there's already plenty here and indications that there's plenty more. Insulting something as "very small-town America" hardly justifies deletion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While John Nagle's source analysis is thorough and notable as a reason to delete, I also find it disturbing that an article so carefully crafted in its first 24 hours is subjected to a harsher analysis than Pokemon, Family Guy, and Yu-Gi-Oh episodes which have had months to ferment. in the interest of AGF and the community based article building, I'm for keeping this article for at least 6 months, at which time, if needed, it can be revisited. ThuranX (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Early AfDs are sometimes troublesome, but it's the responsibility of the article creator to demonstrate notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination) for a contentious AfD over a programming language that turned out to be non-notable. One of the big issues there was whether the AfD was too soon. The first AfD was indecisive, and during it the article acquired many references, but they were very weak ones. See my comments there. After a week or so of looking hadn't turned up any good non-promotional references, there was a second AfD, resulting in deletion. If notability is tough to establish within a few days during an AfD, it's probably not there. --John Nagle (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. So far, I read above several possible routes to notability, via the rabbi, architect, age w/in Conservative movement, and/or relevance to Lebanon. However, it's not clear to me that any independent and reliable sources are themselves affirming these routes to notability. (They may incidentally confirm the data, but that's not the same thing, is it?) What reliable source(s) most clearly point out the shul's notability? Thanks. HG | Talk 09:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC) PS Also, I don't see how criticisms of the AfD nomination/process are arguments to keep. Pls discuss elsewhere.[reply]
    • Hi HG: There are enough facts in this article derived from local newspapers, books, other websites, that in sum make for good resources and an article that meets all the requirements for it to be kept. IZAK (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand your view about sourced facts. Perhaps I have different expectations; in any case, I would still appreciate an answer to my question. Thanks Izak. HG | Talk 10:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Others have made excellent cases as to why this article should be kept and I agree with them. That being said that I'd like to point out how, if the criticisms are so few and so well-defined, any editor who isn't satisfied with the state of the article in question may use those criticisms as the starting point for improvement efforts. This goes for any other article. If you can point out what's wrong so easily, then it should be that much easier to fix what's wrong. So, I look forward to seeing how all editors supporting deletion will direct their attention to more constructive solutions. --yonkeltron (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is only lacking notability if you're against articles on interesting, historical synagogues designed by notable architects. It makes me scratch my head and wonder why anyone would sit and scan the list of synagogues looking to peck them off one at a time... Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well written and sourced, and the synagogue appears to have at least some historical importance. -- Nsaum75 (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep historic churches and synagogues can well be notable, and this is a good example to illustrate that. DGG (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The synogogue is notable. No reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Frankly, I wish we had a well sourced article for every church in the country. givein just this sort of informatino, when it was founded, why, where it is affiliated, what kind of building. In this case, with a notable rabbi and a notable architect, I cannot imagine why we are even discussing deletion.Elan26 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
  • Question. A lot of the discussion here seems to be revolving around the idea that the synagogue is notable because individuals associated with it were notable, but "notability is inherited" is a canonical argument to avoid in deletion discussions (see WP:INHERITED). Is there any evidence that it has some independent notability of its own? Is it architecturally distinctive, did important events happen there, etc? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, no. The architect is somewhat notable, but even in a book about the architect, the building ("a barn-style white building") merited only a one-line mention. The rabbi was involved in a minor political flap in a previous job. The congregation, but not the building, is a century old. That's about it. Unless you take the (rejected) WP:CHURCH position that all churches are presumed notable, as some editors have suggested above, this one just doesn't make the cut. --John Nagle (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The position taken by those commenting here is not that "all churches are presumed notable", or even that all synagogues are - and note, some of those commenting have pointed out inherent differences between churches and synagogues. They also point out that the WP:NOTE guideline does not effectively measure (or even address) notability in the case of synagogues, and that this synagogue is notable, for the reasons given. I've been creating some synagogue stubs recently, and of the synagogues I've researched fewer than half are notable, as far as I can tell. It's not "all or nothing", and it is not helpful to misrepresent the comments made here in that way. Jayjg (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although notability isn't inherited, I do see a difference betw the synagogue's relation to the rabbi and the architect. It could be that wherever "Washington slept here" is noteworthy, but I don't think wherever Paula Reimers is rabbi is necessarily notable. She's marginally notable and she doesn't lend much notability to the place she's at. On the other hand, Goodman designed the building and so, arguably, he does directly lend the synagogue some notability. How much? Well, the bldg is one of 3 cited as evidence in a paragraph about how he adjusts style to place. This strike me as better than a sentence but isn't that still fairly marginal? Or is it enough, when combined with the other marginal factors, like the rabbi, the age, and it relevance to the local area? HG | Talk 03:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the discussion has revolved around that idea, but certainly not all. Its age and unique position in the community, among other things, have also been mentioned. Jayjg (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The building is only metaphorically described as evoking a barn. Architects talk like that. It is a mid-century modernist statement by an important architect.Elan26 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Elan[reply]
  • the rabbi is also notable, for several incidents of politicl activism. And for her theological paper on the use of male and female gender trerms in referring to God in prayer. Any theologian would envy a paper that, like Reimer's was given a serious discussion in the notable Catholic journal First Things. I only did a brief search. Her pro-Palestinian activism in particular has drawn coverage.Elan26 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Elan[reply]
  • Keep. If Jayjg wants to go on creating very high-quality articles about North American synagogues he should be given the benefit of the doubt regarding their notability. Call me an inclusionist, but I do think proper deletions require – over and above technical applications of the notability guideline – a good common-sense explanation of how a given article undermines the encyclopedia (promotional puffery, for example). Such an explanation has not been provided in the above discussion. Instead, there are technical notability arguments, and as intelligent and insightful as these are (John Nagle and HG deserve credit) I do not find them compelling in the aggregate; and they frequently seem to turn on distinctions the significance of which is debatable (“the congregation, but not the building, is a century old"). I would think the technical notability demands are indeed satisfied by the building's architectural pedigree, modest as that may be. The fact that it's been described by one critic as a "barn-style white building" is neither here nor there; Elan26 is right that architects (and their critics) often talk that way.
Now, there has indeed been a pattern of pro-Israel editors creating and expanding articles in order to magnify the visibility or promote the google ratings of obscure ideological memes and hobby-horses (cf Pallywood, Alleged Ouze Merham interview of Ariel Sharon, etc.). The congregation's rabbi apparently got into a little scrap in Burbank (pre-Beth Israel days) when she invited some Muslims to dinner post 9-11 and asked that the Israeli flag not be tacked to the wall of the sukkah for the occasion. Not so much a tempest in a teapot as a light shower in a thimble. Neutral editors should check in on this page from time to time to ensure that it doesn't become a vehicle for spotlighting and magnifying a pseudo-scandal from the rabbi's past. But that's an argument for content vigilance related to NPOV, UNDUE, and BLP – not an argument for preemptive deletion.--G-Dett (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if the synagogue had some non-local coverage. I checked Nexis, a quite extensive database, and there don't seem to be any articles about the congregation outside the local area. HG | Talk 19:09, 27 July 2008 (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/Congregation_Beth_Israel_(Lebanon,_Pennsylvania)&oldid=1037759775"