Talk:Temple Israel

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 04:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussions copied from Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma) (article formerly called Temple Israel)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Temple Israel in Columbus, Ohio

There is also a Temple Israel in Columbus, Ohio. I am thinking of editing this article to include that congegation as well. It by the way is also reform temple. Below, is the website:

http://www.templeisrael.org

What does everyone else think??WacoJacko 01:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Temple Israel in Staten Island / Section needs work

This section needs some work obviously. It has no content, just a title for the section. I will try to research this to try and improve the section. Also, maybe we can expand this article beyond a stub.WacoJacko (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Any input??WacoJacko (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Set index article vs. disambig

This article seems to be a wp:sia rather than a disambiguation page. It certainly does not comply with guidelines for disambiguation pages (wp:MOSDAB). So I'll change its categorization, and start, also, a disambiguation page, at Temple Israel (disambiguation). doncram (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Temple Israel in Merrit Island, Florida

you should write about him... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.199.182 (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Move the above comments to Talk: Temple Israel?

The above sections don't relate to Temple Israel in Tulsa and were part of the talk page for the former Temple Israel set index article, which has now been replaced by a disambiguation page. Should these be moved to the talk page of the new disambiguation page? If so, what is the correct way to do this?--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The move was a) probably inappropriate to do at all, as the list-article / Set Index Article was okay, and b) was done badly, moving the edit history to a clearly inappropriate location. I'll open a multiple pages requested move to fix all. --doncram (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it probably makes sense to do so. The previous article wasn't a proper Set Index Article, and the move was done properly, moving the edit history to the clearly appropriate article. I've commented to that effect in the requested move section below. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closing before this mushrooms even farther out of control. Arxiloxos has summarized the situation well: an unusual history led to an unusual situation, but it can be fixed fairly easily. Consensus of users who are not focused on beating a dead horse is that "Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)" should remain as an article about that one synagogue, "Temple Israel" should be a disambiguation page, and most of the contents of this talk page should be associated with "Temple Israel." No one is at fault here; please move on... Orlady (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma) → Temple Israel and
Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)/Temp → Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma) and
Temple Israel → deleted

— The "Temple Israel" article in its latest version before moves just now, was a valid wp:SIA set index article, in lieu of a disambiguation page. It had 14 footnotes. It was just moved inappropriately IMO to "Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)" by an editor who then created a new disambiguation page at "Temple Israel". I think the editor did not understand there can be either a SIA or a DAB page. If there was a proposal to change the SIA to a DAB, that could be considered, but the page history should not be moved to Tulsa! I request undoing of all the moves. The current new version of the Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma) page should perhaps be copied to a user page to save it, if it includes new editing. --doncram (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC) doncram (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Amendment: The current new version of the Tulsa, Oklahoma article was copied to Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)/Temp and is to be moved to the "Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)" name after the current article, with its history, is restored and moved back to the main list article name, "Temple Israel". --doncram (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Object. I had no idea that this would be at all controversial, but the proposed move makes no sense. "Temple Israel" is not a WP:SIA; there is no "specific type" of synagogue that is a "Temple Israel" type of synagogue. It just happens to be a common name for a set of completely unrelated synagogues, much like Temple Beth-El, Temple Sinai, Congregation Tifereth Israel etc., all of which are properly represented by disambiguation pages. The previous version of the Temple Israel article really only had significant information about Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma) - 9 of the 14 references were about Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma), and all of the 5 other "references" were just blind links to synagogue home pages, not even proper references. Even worse, not one of these homepages actually backed up the all claims being attributed it; in other words, they were false references too. The only legitimate information in the article was about Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma), but in order to better comply with GFDL, rather than simply cutting and pasting the information into a new article, I moved the existing article so that the history was all retained, and created a proper disambiguation page in its place. Finally, the current Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma) is a proper article, so it makes no sense at all to copy it to a user page; what on earth would be the point? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, skip the saving of the Tulsa article, which i thot incorrectly had new material developed by Jayjg. The material is in the main Temple Israel SIA article which should be restored by the reverting. By the way, discussion further above shows that i also created Temple Israel (disambiguation) when encountering the list-article, myself. I think i was just getting used to SIAs and DABs since then. I do agree that the SIA could use some development / care, but effectively deleting it without due process seems wrong. I think reverting is the right thing to do now, but I will listen to other comments. --doncram (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Why "skip the saving of the Tulsa article"? It's a perfectly good article, which belongs on Wikipedia, and has been cleaned up and had the proper categories and infobox added, with relevant data like geolocation, address, leadership, etc. Why on earth would one userfy or delete a proper, standalone article? Why would all the other "Temple Israel" articles be allowed to be standalones, but not this specific one? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I suggested moving the list-article back to its name, and i added a note towards ensuring that the info i thot u developed on the Tulsa one should not be lost. You seemed to object to saving that separately, and i realised that there was no info, that the info would still reside in the list-article. I amend the proposal above. The proposal was meant with no prejudice about your splitting out a separate article on the Tulsa one. I objected to converting the list-article to an article about just one of the places. It defies logic, given some edit history and development of the list as a list. It's fine to split out articles as new named articles. The requested move, with amendment to save the separate Tulsa article differently according to your wishes, is now what I support. --doncram (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that Jayjg's intended result makes sense: as separate articles were written about the other notable Temples Israel, the SIA page dwindled down to the point that it essentially contained the Tulsa content, some redirects, and a couple of paragraphs about other temples without any indicia of notability. Jayjg's edits to the new Tulsa page (an infobox and added categories) are valuable and should not be lost. I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer as to where the history of the old SIA page belongs. My only concern was what to do with the talk page comments, none of them relating to Tulsa; but really, there's not much of anything there, so query whether it would make more sense to simply archive the existing comments and move on. Or alternatively, delete [[Talk:Temple Israel]], move [[Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)]] to [[Talk:Temple Israel]], and then replace the resulting redirect with a new [[Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)]]?--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The SIA article does not have to dwindle down, it can be a list-article about Temples Israel that includes description about each one. If it covers all Temple Israel places having Wikipedia articles, then the SIA serves readers well providing disambiguation between places (and obviating a separate disambiguation page) and also providing further information as an interesting-to-some list. This is an obvious RM to restore a list-article. The list-article should not be deleted without an PROD or other deletion process (to which i would object because it is a decent SIA topic). --doncram (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I restored the list article. Note this restores substantial info that was simply lost before, for example sections on the Alameda, California one and on the Staten Island one, both sourced. Those do not require separate articles; they function fine as sections in a list-article. Info on the Alameda one came up near top of a Google search on "Temple Israel". The suggested dab page (which I suggest be deleted) shows no mention of this. I'll also copy the Tulsa, Oklahoma one's info to Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)/Temp, to clarify for u that it will not be lost. --doncram (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the article about this topic, the Tulsa, Oklahoma article. You've removed a great deal of valuable information on this topic, and no-one actually supports your suggested changes. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I copied the entire Tulsa version of the article to a Temp page, and modified the RM request. What info to you feel is lost?

Note, i felt restoring the list-article was appropriate, when i realized that the changes implemented by Jayjg had actually lost considerable information, not covered in any separate article, namely the info in the list-articles sections on Temples Israel that do not have separate articles. That makes it pretty obvious to me, anyhow, that the set index article was fine. It was inappropriate to move it and recast it to cover just Tulsa, losing all the other info and the navigation it provided. The separate dab page that was created has less info, and is not needed if the SIA is in place. I copied the entire new Tulsa page to the Temp version.

The Tulsa-specific version of this page was restored by Jayjg and i reverted that. Also it was restored by Orlady and i reverted that. I requested in my last edit summary that Jayjg make any further development in the Temp version of the Tulsa article. This is the correct place to discuss the structure of these several articles. Please discuss here. Orlady, in particular, please consider the history of this article (until a day or two ago a Set-index-article) and consider your views. Given your views about preferring SIAs to dabs + list-articles elsewhere, I would actually think you would support this being restored. The alternative is, i guess, a dab plus a new List article (of set-index or other type), cut off from its history of edits. No one is disputing whether Tulsa one can have an article; it's just wrong to create it over the list-article, usurping the edit history there. --doncram (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 2 and disambiguation vs. set-index-article

I'll open a requested move to restore the edit history of the list-article on places named "Temple Israel", sometime later, in a day or two. I just edited this page "Temple Israel" to re-create the set-index-article, which substitutes for a disambiguation page. This page is re-starting as a copy of the an earlier version of article now at Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma) which was (inappropriately in my view) moved from "Temple Israel" and converted to being a page about just one place. There are 15 notable places named Temple Israel covered so far in this list-article. My re-creation here is just intended to save the valid information that had been collected. I believe there is no need for a separate disambiguation page, but if others feel that is needed it could be reconstituted at Temple Israel (disambiguation) which was a disambiguation page before it was a redirect to here. --doncram (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doncram. I've restored the disambiguation page, since that's what this is. It's not really a "set list" page, since there is no such thing as a "Temple Israel" type of synagogue. Unlike the articles in "set list", these synagogues have no relationship to each other, other than sharing a common name. As explained to you before, please review articles such as Emanu-El, Temple Beth-El, Temple Sinai. Also, the "valid information" that you "saved" is, in fact, not particularly relevant. All the information is either contained in other articles already, or has no specific indication of relevance. In addition, the citations used here were actually false (this was also explained before) - that is, where there was material in this article, the citation given didn't actually support the claims made. Most of the citations, in fact, were simply links to synagogue home pages, which contained little information. I would recommend an RFC if you really feel strongly about this, though I don't really think it will go anywhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you asked User:Orlady to comment here too. Orlady, i did ask Jayjg directly at his talk page to comment here.

I have edited the Emanu-El dab page and probably both the others too. I am fully aware of what a dab page is, and see that your recent edits there were justified by dab page rules. You deleted external links and so on, correct for maintaining a dab page. But, that page could be, instead, a set-index-article, in which case different rules would apply. It would be permissible to include references and external links, and for each entry to include descriptions and photos and so on. Orlady should be able to corroborate that, as she was recently arguing for use of a set-index-article on the unrelated case of places named "Masonic Temple" (as an alternative to the current disambiguation page at Masonic Temple (disambiguation) ). You're saying this is a dab page is true, vacuously, if you edit it to be a dab page. But, this was and could be a set-index-article instead. Would you please look at what set-index-articles are? Have you read wp:SIA? I'll pause to hear your reply; i would really like to know that you have informed yourself a bit about that topic, first. --doncram (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course I've read WP:SIA, which is why I keep quoting it to you. The very first sentence of the section says:

A set index article is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name.

Is a "Temple Israel" synagogue a specific type of synagogue? If so, what specific type would that be? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, at least we're talking. I didn't want to put in a Requested Move 2 request if this was unstable, though i am not sure where this is headed. Perhaps AFD for the set-index-article, which has not received due consideration in that type of forum, having been deleted by over-writing only, so far. It would be the specific type of synagogues named Temple Israel. The SIA example given is List of peaks named Signal Mountain, which are mountains. I see the corresponding dab page Signal Mountain lists only the places that have articles, and includes others not of the same type (some are towns rather than mountains). A list of synagogues named Temple Israel are all the same type, by that kind of perspective. The name of the SIA could be "List of synagogues named Temple Israel", of which i guess there are 12 having articles in Wikipedia and 2 not having articles. There could be a separate dab listing just the 12. But since, unlike for Signal Mountain, all items on the dab would also appear in the SIA, i don't think the dab is necessary (but I don't particularly mind if a duplicative dab is kept, too). I think there is value to having a set index article, which can list places of this name, given steady pressure of editors/readers to add mentions of other ones. This applies for making set-index-articles for the other 3 synagogue disambiguation pages that you mention, which i see we both have previously edited. But Temple Israel is the one that has already existed as a list-article of the set-index-article type. Do you see that "List of synagogues named Temple Israel" is a valid set-index-article, then, at that name or at "Temple Israel"? --doncram (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you've addressed the fundamental question here; what is a "Temple Israel type" of synagogue? I don't think a shared name is a very significant common characteristic. Regarding your suggestion of having the SIA at "List of synagogues named Temple Israel". that would make more sense to me than changing this disambiguation page into such a last, but I'm unsure. Should we, for example, have a Beth Israel page that is a disambiguation, and then a List of synagogues named Beth Israel "SIA", which lists all 57 synagogues again? Should we do that with all disambiguations? Create a List of locations named Springfield "SIA" with 40 or so items on that? I'm not saying we shouldn't, mind you, but I haven't seen that commonly done. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

O.K., this is what I've done. Per your suggestion, I've restored the old article to List of synagogues named Temple Israel (and I've split the article histories). Now we have three articles:

1. Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma), about Temple Israel in Tulsa.
2. Temple Israel, a disambiguation page for articles named "Temple Israel"
3. List of synagogues named Temple Israel, a WP:SIA for all synagogues named "Temple Israel", not just a disambiguation for those on which we have articles. I would recommend at this point turning this article into a table, like the one at List of peaks named Signal Mountain.

Your thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg that this is not an appropriate topic for a list or a set-index article. I see no indication that there is any particular significance to the name "Temple Israel" that justifies anything more than a disambiguation page. It appears from the articles that these are simply synagogues that chose the same name -- although the name may appear to be more meaningful than something like "Central Baptist Church", there is no indication that the name (or the choice of this name) had or has a specific meaning or significance that is of encyclopedic interest. It appears to me that List of synagogues named Temple Israel has no more reason for existing than List of churches named Central Baptist Church.

However, Jayjg's example of List of locations named Springfield is an interesting choice, because it highlights the fact that it is hard to draw a bright line in these cases. The suggested list-article title does not exist, but its subject matter is covered in the article Springfield (toponym). The notability of the topic of that article is indicated by the entry "What is the most frequently occurring community (city, town, village, etc.) name in the United States?" on this USGS webpage. --Orlady (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

An additional concern here is that List of synagogues named Temple Israel may violate WP:NOTDIR. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it does violate WP:NOT (that was supposed to be implicit in my earlier comments). I have seen no indication that there is anything nontrivial or culturally significant about the collection of synagogues that use this name. --Orlady (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thinking further on the topic, I think it's obvious that there are common characteristics that are so trivial that everyone would agree there is no point in a List or "Set index" article on the topic. For example, Synagogues whose name contain the word "Israel", or Synagogues whose names start with "T" - such articles would undoubtedly be deleted very swiftly at AfD. This is a less trivial commonality - but is it significant enough for a set list? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry i was away for a bit. Yes, i think it's a legit set-index-article topic. I have myself developed most of 3,000+ disambiguation pages that cover NRHP-listed places, and for the most part i have resisted occasional suggestions that dab pages like Smith House and many others should be converted to Set Index Articles in order to avoid rigid rules for disambiguation pages. I have believed that there is, in most of these cases, no general interest in a list-article / set-index-article of places that coincidentally have the same name. As opposed to WikiProject Ships' set-index-articles about ships that successively shared the same name, where there is interest. But for Temple Israel and actually also for the other 3 common names of synagogues, there does seem to be more commonality than for houses coincidentally named the same or similarly, and there has been persistent interest in adding entries to a dab or set-index-article. My editing the Temple Israel article a while back was an early foray by me into set-index-articles, going with what others had done beforehand and responding to interest, within policy/guidelines. I don't think it should move backwards. And certainly not by the opinion of one or two editors, outside of the AFD mechanism that is set up to deal with the existence of articles.

I must say, Orlady's participation here is problematic. Orlady is an editor who has for several years now followed my edits and generally disagreed with them. I have not thoroughly checked the history here, but i believe this is like other articles where her entry was based on her seeing my edits and following me in a fashion that appears mostly like she is interested in finding fault and disagreeing with me. I am sorry, but i have to discount her views considerably. You may take her comments at face value and/or regard them any other way you wish, but based on long antagonistic history i have to believe it is most likely she is just opposing my views for the sake of opposing my views. Jayjg, I know you invited her continued participation in this issue, but (although i have not thoroughly researched it) I believe her first entry was of this negative, non-good-faith nature and/or the vehemence of her remarks is considerably motivated by that negative energy. I know all about wp:AGF, but I can't continue to assume that, given her long practice of wp:wikihounding me. She has actually stated she hates me (she offered it up as "strongly dislikes" me), yet she follows me everywhere. That's a burden i am not happy to bear. You don't have to accept or evaluate all of this statement by me so far. But, I do believe her opposition to the set-index-article here may well be not good faith, and it appears hypocritical for her to oppose the set-index-article here while just recently she advocated a set-index-article in a different topic (where that would oppose my preference there for a list-article). I have seen her reach ridiculously hypocritical judgments in many other cases now. I wish she would not follow me and introduce these complications of good faith or not into new discussions. She certainly should not be butting in to close a Requested Move or to use administrative powers to work against me, as she cannot ever be an uninvolved party when butting in this way. You don't have to comment about this or not, but I think i need to say this to explain that she doesn't "hear" me and vice versa. --doncram (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that I never used the word "hate" in connection with my attitude toward you, Doncram. I happen to see a large difference between "hate" and "dislike".

Let me remind you that I confessed to that "strong dislike" in the context of telling you that you were complaining that I was engaged in some sort of personal campaign against you before I had even noticed that I had interacted with you on multiple occasions -- and that it was your consistently negative toward me that caused me to form that negative opinion that you had accused me of having. Life can be so much simpler when you choose not to interpret every disagreement as a personal attack. --Orlady (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I find the whole concept of "set-index-articles" vs. "disambiguations" vs. "lists" a bit confusing. That is to say, I understand the purpose of a List, and I understand the purpose of a Disambiguation page, but I don't see many circumstances in which one would prefer a Set Index article to one or the other or both. For example, List of synagogues named Temple Israel - should it list every single synagogue in the United States (or world) named "Temple Israel"? There are many that are not currently listed in the article. And if it did, would that not violate WP:NOTDIR? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are just some of the Temple Israels not currently mentioned in List of synagogues named Temple Israel:[1][2] [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Should they all be mentioned? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well put, I have to agree with you about the general issues. Including the concern that by opening a set-index-article it potentially opens the door to additions of many non-notable places. Administering a disambiguation page is a lot clearer, as it is simple and justified-by-policy to pare off additions that don't have articles or that are not properly supported by MOS:DABRL-compliant supporting bluelinks. But, many list-articles / set-index-articles do operate okay and editors find their way to definitions of notability that work well enough. I would welcome involvement of more WikiProject Judaism editors to define what synagogues are notable. And to consider what structure of articles would best address this area (e.g. having separate set-index-articles about each common synagogue name, or having one big List of synagogues article). I believe the disambiguation pages should play a supporting role and be complementary to whatever mainspace / proper list-articles exist. I currently think that set-index-articles on each of the most common synagogue names, which included a properly sourced introduction that explained the name, and otherwise developed the topic a bit with a historical perspective, and listed the Wikipedia-notable ones having articles, would be okay/good. I think there has previously been decent attempts by editors to provide some perspective about the names in these dab pages, but these efforts have routinely been pared away. I currently think that the set-index-articles could best be provided at the synagogue names, e.g. at Temple Israel, instead of having a dab page, but I am happy for a while to allow the list-article to be developed at List of synagogues named Temple Israel and to allow the disambiguation page to continue to exist for now also. Thank you for creating/restoring the list-article with your split of the article history. --doncram (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad it helped resolve the issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I do see differences between a potential List of synagogues named Beth Israel vs. a hypothetical List of churches named Central Baptist Church. The first can usefully include sourced explanation of the meaning of the name Beth Israel and historical info about the earliest and most notable places of this name, and I believe there is interest by readers of Wikipedia in this topic and I have observed there is interest by editors in developing it. I don't currently believe there is anything meaningful to say about the topic of Central Baptist Churches, and don't observe interest by editors in developing that as a topic. --doncram (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you consider List of synagogues in Minnesota a WP:SIA? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointer. I notice, as you probably are already aware, that there are lower and higher level lists, but there was no List of synagogues in the United States due to a 2007 AFD decision to delete. I restarted that list-article which is naturally needed and will now survive new AFD processes, I predict. I link the Minnesota, Omaha, and Washington lists of synagogues there.

About whether a given list is a set-index-article or not, I am not sure of any importance in making the distinction. The primary guideline governing set-index-articles (at [[wp:SIA) is that they must comply with general list-article guidelines. I think the distinction might just be that a set-index-article is a list-article which can fully substitute for a disambiguation page. --doncram (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm willing to put work into these kinds of lists/SIAs: List of synagogues named Temple Israel, List of synagogues named Beth Israel, etc., but not if they're going to be eventually deleted at AfD. It might make sense to bring List of synagogues named Temple Israel to AfD first, to get an outside view, before investing more effort in them that might go to waste. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good. I don't think they will be eventually deleted. I don't think we can legitimately start an AFD just to test that, if we ourselves want these to exist, though. And I don't want to waste time in an AFD. They can be legitimate SIAs in lieu of disambiguation pages, at least, I am pretty sure there would be a solid consensus of editors for that. Currently the Temple Israel SIA is not "in lieu of", but rather is duplicative of the Temple Israel dab. Are you coming around to seeing that the dab can be dropped, allowing the SIA to move to the natural name? It may be useful to discuss that topic further at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Set index articles - what is "of a specific type"?. I think that seemed helpful already, and hope the conversation there continues. --doncram (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, I still don't feel comfortable with this, and don't see why we should have a SIA/list instead of a disambig page. If the lists allowed us to reference all sorts of "Temple Israels" not on Wikipedia, that would be one thing, and then I would see the difference and work on the article, but they apparently don't. I'm going to put the List/SIA up for deletion, so we can get a proper view of AfD regulars on whether or not this material is appropriate. If the consensus is not to delete, then I'll work on improving the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: the AfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of synagogues named Temple Israel. I'd appreciate it if you could argue the case for keeping it, as you'd likely do a better job of it than me. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)