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.
Looks like
a nice place. 7dorim.com seems to have reliable
editorial staff focused on documenting the history and presence of Jews in Iran. Weak keep, I would say. --
Vejvančický (
talk /
contribs) 11:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep, per
Vejvančický. The article is sourced and (now) Wikified, and I've added AD equivalents for the SH dates. Unician∇ 12:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:N. Aside from the Arabic source, I don't see any third-party refs online or in Google books for the synagogue or the founder.
Yoninah (
talk) 01:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)reply
It isn't Arabic, it's Persian.
Zerotalk 01:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment. I have no objection to an article on this subject. A synagogue for 500 people is notable enough in my estimation. However, I'm concerned about the sourcing. The only source given seems to be some sort of religious web site. Conformity to
WP:RS is currently arguable.
Zerotalk 01:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep (and revisit in six months) if only for the fact that this article was created a mere two days ago (June 14, 2014)
[1] and how on Earth does the nominator know that this is not notable? (unless the nominator knows something that we don't know that is a reason to shoot down this article within a day or two of its creation) and how could anyone possibly demand "instant sources"? when it's about an ancient Persian synagogue that for all we know is more notable than hundreds of other synagogue article that have been around on WP and are still taking time to improve. Obviously the creator of the article was not engaged and was not seriously contacted and this was not discussed anywhere in any real way either at the article's or anyone's talk page or at
WP:TALKJUDAISM. This is where
WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and
WP:CHANCE should be read and re-read. Thank you,
IZAK (
talk) 15:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep, per
Vejvančický and
IZAK. Especially since this is an underserved topic area on Wikipedia, I see no reason to come in with a bulldozer on a promising, sourced article after only two days. ∴ ZX95[
discuss 21:50, 21 June 2014 (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.