Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adath Israel Congregation (Toronto)

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. - Bobet 09:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adath Israel Congregation (Toronto)

Appears not be notable. Seems to me like this is just a standard synagogue. If there were some context as to why this notable, then I will withdraw the Afd. Thanks. Nlsanand 17:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending notability ST47 17:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this nomination raises a good question for any religious institution , what makes it notable? I have been trying to find some precendants (see Category:Wikipedia notability criteria) for this but so far have been unsuccessful. So in this case, the only reason I can make for notability is the Rabbi Emeritus, Erwin Schild and the size of the congregation. If you look at this link (http://www.uscj.org/Find_a_Synagogue_Sea5425.html) you will see this synagogue fits the VL (VL = very large 1000+) class. There are not many VL Conservative synagogues in North America. Check New York and you will see three for the entire state. So, I vote to Keep. --YUL89YYZ 17:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand this obscure, but totally legitimate page. Please read Wikipedia:Notability#Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability to see what I mean. All this page needs is some historical data and background information. Karol 17:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is cool with me. I did notify the original author on his talk page. Maybe he will know some background info. Nlsanand 17:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can find more information on the congregation's website. I added a mention about the founding, others can add more if they wish. Wikipedia is not paper and we can and should keep topics that are legitamite and long-standing, even if a bit obscure. Karol 18:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete god spam --Xrblsnggt 03:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Leuko 04:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Fairsing 06:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Karol. --Usgnus 19:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 1800 families and founded in 1906 means that there is enough size and history to justify an article. - SimonP 22:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Visviva 12:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of significance. Individual houses of worship need to be extraordinary to be kept IMO. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and investigate notability (otherwise delete later on) as per SimonP. --Eliyak T·C 14:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per size and age. I'm not convinced that either by itself would be enough (probably age by itself would not be) but the combination is enough. JoshuaZ 15:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I would wait for additional evidence. Is this synagogue, by any chance, one of the largest non-egalitarian Conservative synagogues in North America, or, for example, the Toronto synagogue involved in the stir mentioned here. [1]? If so, or if it's engaged in similar activism in the Conservative movement and it could be sourced and proven, then given the ongoing debate in Conservative Judaism it might be quite notable. --Shirahadasha 20:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On further research Adat Israel has indeed received press attention for policies that are considered extremely conservative for a Conservative synagogue. It prohibits the Jewish member of intermarried families from membership. [2] This publication called its policies "An anomaly in the Conservative movement." [3]. This publication [4] indicates that its Rabbi has proposed a separate "sovereignty association" to protect the interests of non-egalitarian Conservative synagogues. It seems to be having difficulties with the (more liberal) mainstream Conservative movement and to be getting press attention because of them. --Shirahadasha 07:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per size and long history. -- pm_shef 01:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please per pm_shef this has history we should document Yuckfoo 19:07, 30 August 2006 (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.