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, with no prejudice towards turning it into a redirect. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad of South London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable institution. One of hundreds just like it that serves as the home base for a local Chabad rabbi. Violates content forking WP:CFORK and also WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTDIRECTORY because Wikipedia is not Chabad.org. This should be merged and redirected to the main Chabad house article with a couple of sentences being more than sufficient. IZAK (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Chabad house per above. IZAK (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable institution that probably could have been speedied. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now It's a recently-created stub; let its creator take some time to improve it. If it continues to be as short as this, then delete it.
• Comment This institution may not be notable enough to have an article, but Izak's comments above are unacceptable. Whatever this is, it is not a content fork, advertising, or a directory. It is an article about an institution; nothing more or less. If it has attracted enough coverage to satisfy WP:N then it stays; otherwise it goes, just like hundreds of other WP articles about non-notable institutions, all of which are assumed to have been created in good faith. As for "Wikipedia is not Chabad.org", I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but taken together with Izak's many comments elsewhere over the past week or so, about some sort of Chabad conspiracy to "take over Wikipedia", it is clear to me that his deletion campaign is not undertaken in good faith but in pursuit of an anti-Chabad vendetta, as if subjects connected in any way with Chabad were thereby somehow illegitimate. -- Zsero (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, Zsero, I am sticking to the point and also to WP:BOLD. What is false or not true or "unacceptable" about the nomination? You are talking about ME but not about the SUBJECT at hand and that is not productive. Why talk around a subject when I am trying to be as direct and honest and not devious at all. Any editor is free to take an interest in subject/s of importance to them and I have been known as having an interest in Judaic articles since December of 2002, and the subject of Chabad is important given its controversies and its attempted reach, in this case onto Wikipedia as if there is now a Wikipedia Chabad house at work with the pro-Chabad editors as its bosses in violation of WP:OWN of the Chabad articles and if anyone questions them or their edits, they go to WP:WAR and violate WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND as you are now attempting to do. The fact remains that articles related to Chabad have been proliferating and many have taken on the outright tone, stance and style of advertizing in keeping with Chabad's own known style. This is for the benefit and credibility of both Chabad and Wikipedia, that Wikipedia should not become a WP:MIRROR site for the tens of thousands of articles that appear on not just Chabad.org but on the hundreds of other pro-Chabad sites. Wikipedia needs to retain its stance of a WP:NPOV source of information, that will contain even WP:RS'd criticism of Chabad, and not be flooded with so-called articles that are just being foisted to promote one pro-Chabad cause only. Thank you, and Shabbat Shalom IZAK (talk) 14:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I'm concerned your comments are the issue; they are unacceptable on Wikipedia. They are not civil, they are not geared to the promotion of a working community of editors, and they are not geared to producing a better encyclopaedia. Look over your comments of the last week or two, on all these deletion requests as well as at Project Judaism and elsewhere, read them from a neutral point of view, and see how they appear. The accusations of a vast conspiracy to "take over WP" do not appear rational at all, and if they're not all the way into a personal attack on the Chabad editors they certainly come very close, and are way past civility. I am very concerned about it, and I think you should stop it and apologise before it goes any further. -- Zsero (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Zsero, notice how you do not respond to the issues but right away you choose to make this into something personal, so that you are now violating WP:NPA as if I or anyone objective is now accused of being "not rational" for the very rational and clear act of identifying a trend of the growing powers and influnce of pro-Chabad editors over the past few years (it's not an imgagined "conspiracy" either) who are planting more and more pro-Chabad articles on Wikipedia, often silly ones and guilty of violating content forking, see WP:POVFORK, and in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING and when anyone calls them on that they will scream and shout "you are irrational" etc for stating what is obvious and clear as daylight. It would be more helpful if we could see to it how the pro-Chabad editors can be brought in line and not function like a fifth-column whose aim is clearly to promote the pro-Chabad POV in articles about them and then stonewalling and blocking attempts to clarify and discuss how Chabad Judaism is not the be all and end all either either in Chabad articles or any others relating to any Judaic topic on Wikipedia (feel free to do so on Chabad.org or on any of the hundreds of Chabad sites and blogs online.) How else would you like to discuss this, beyond your personal preference for not discussing it? IZAK (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Izak responds with more of the same. He imagines a "a fifth-column" with "growing powers and influnce". This is utterly unacceptable behaviour and I must protest. As far as I'm concerned this is the issue; not the deletion of this or that article but an organised deletion campaign orchestrated in bad faith as an attack on Chabad-related editors. -- Zsero (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable institution that should have been speedily deleted. Chabad missionaries are trying to turn Wikipedia into a Chabad resource, a tool for their religious mission. This is a violation of what Wikipedia is all about. RK (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No. What is a violation of what WP is all about is this kind of wild accusation. As for the article, it's a recently created stub and should be allowed some time to grow, as many similar articles have done before. If it still looks like this six months or a year from now, then delete away. -- Zsero (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, IZAK's words are really dry and totally fair, whatever he wrote somewhere else is not relevant here. Sure a bit more sensitivity could be used for a Jewish institution, but Afd rationale is completely acceptable and not harsh at all. --Shuki (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN synagogue. There is nothing to merge or redirect. At most, add to List of Chabad houses. --Shuki (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete add to List of Chabad houses. -- Avi (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or keep redirect to List of Chabad houses if notability can not be established, otherwise keep. Jbenjos (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2009 (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.