Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of communities with eruv

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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 05:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of eruvin

Listcruft. In fact would qualify for speedy deletion as being nothing but linkspam. (M0RD00R, please put this on your own web site. A link to it from the eruv article will almost certainly be accepted.) -- RHaworth 23:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. Wikipedia is not a guidebook Corpx 01:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Eruv is a religious structure of significant importance to the Jewish community, therefore the list is certainly encyclopedic. This list is also very educational, because quite often this structure is not plainly seen and many non-Jewish people live inside eruv not knowing about it. Linkspam concern ~~can be~~ was addressed by reformatting. Cheers. M0RD00R 04:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we have List of cities with defensive walls and many other "List of cities with..." then I don't see why this article shouldn't be here. Number 5 7 14:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) So what if there are other lists? 2) An eruv isn't a distinctive and noteworthy feature of a city which calls for listings. --Calton | Talk 00:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an informative list, but further information should be added about the entries--possibly sponsorship and a better indication of the area covered--then it might be more clearly encyclopedic. DGG 20:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article definitely can be expanded. While sponsorship is of secondary importance, detailed information about covered area would make article much better. Information about organizations running maintenance of eruv, establishment dates also should be added.M0RD00R 20:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - encyclopedic and educational. Stylistic issues can be addressed, but I see no reason to delete. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mentioning some prominent or unusual examples in eruv, sure, but having an exhaustive list would be the job of guidebook, which Wikipedia isn't. --Calton | Talk 00:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yet another example of WP:CRUFTCRUFT. The linkspam claim is utterly irrelevant, as these are links to the organizations that have maintain and monitor these eruvin. The article is encyclopedic, categorized by continent/county/state or province/___location and provides over 70 sources for the eruvs listed. Given the importance of an eruv in each of the communities that have them, and the opposition that some have faced as a part of their construction, this list serves a rather constructive purpose. Notability for the list has been demonstrated. Alansohn 01:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was originally a part of the eruv article, but frankly it was getting unwieldy so this was split off. Frankly it's better here as it's own article. --Bachrach44 01:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With any discussion of eruvim (installation can sometime be contraversail both within the Jewish community and with the community at large) president of previous eruvim is an important factor. The list would be must more valueable it it listed (or perhaps was ordered by) year of construction. There are also historical Eruvim in some cities in Europe. Jon513 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since I myself am from a community that doesn't have an eruv, I can tell you that such a thing indeed is a distinctive and noteworthy feature of a city. I see the external links as inline citations, though non-primary sources would be better. A better introduction with a clearer statement of the inclusion criteria and more wikification is needed to fully conform with WP:LISTS, but it still definitely passes WP:SAL#Appropriate topics for lists. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 13:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important and needs improvement. --Shuki 17:46, 5 July 2007 (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.