Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:44, 24 June 2011

Bet Shira Congregation

Bet Shira Congregation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Delete Non-notable religious organization. Not demonstration of notability. Basket of Puppies 17:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete NN Cloudpersona (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I haven't had a chance to wade through the 771 gnews hits as of yet, or the thousands of ghits. However, while not in themselves indicia of notability, such widespread coverage is often a harbinger of notability being contained in such refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• On the other hand, a large number of gnews hits and ghits might simply indicate that this is a religious organization whose weekly announcements are published in a local newspaper that allows and receives unusually thorough indexing by Google. Just saying. --Orlady (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• It may. Though when it is this high a number, I rarely find that to be the case. But as you imply, one does certainly need to work through the refs to make a judgment at the end of the day, which I've not had time to do.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. It is becoming increasingly difficult to take the nominator seriously because he has made no effort to engage editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM who would have the potential interest in working with him to resolve his concerns. Never in the history of synagogue articles on WP have so many articles about Jewish synagogues been nominated for deletion within days starting from here to those he has attacked so far: , , , , , , , , plus requesting speedy deletion of many others: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (and more such efforts) within so short a span of time by one user, i.e. Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs)}. How much longer will this go on and be tolerated? This type of gung-ho come-what-may rigid "enforcement" deletionism automatically undermines WP:CONSENSUS-building and is bound to lead to future WP:EDITWARRING as more editors with a genuine interest in this topic feel violated and outraged as it undermines WP:AGF when such a wave of actions are conducted giving expert editors limited ability to improve the articles. IZAK (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• NOTE the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Large number of synagogue article deletion proposals. IZAK (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. This is apparently one of the largest Conservative congregations in the Southern United States. Furthemore, the information in the article is well sourced. Davshul (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per IZAK...Modernist (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Week keep only on the condition that reliable sources are added to the text. I searched Google and Google Books and was unable to find any verification that this is indeed "one of the largest Conservative congregations in the Southern United States". Most of the article reads like a website for the organization, and I'm not even going to begin formatting the references for the antisemitic attack until this AfD is finished. Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as a synagogue that was the victim of a high-profile episode of anti-Semitism and for the drive-through Sukkah. Most of the article is run-of-the-mill cruft, however. --Orlady (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets GNG. Sufficient coverage in RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - an absurd nomination. The article is properly and adequately sourced and manifestly satisfies WP:N based on the references provided. Nsk92 (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

  Ns, I agree that the nomination at this moment in time would be absurd. The article is now well sourced and have been significantly improved. However, the version when nominated included zero reliable sources and no demonstration of notability. I withdraw this nomination, but take strong issue with your characterization of this being an absurd nomination. Will you retract? Basket of Puppies 15:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

  What did you find when you Googled for sources on the topic? ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 16:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

  Nothing, as I did not do that. It's not my job. I previously asked about WP:BEFORE's status and told it was a "quasi-guideline". It appears to be more like an essay to me but it isn't required in any event. Basket of Puppies 16:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strong keep There is a very wide range of reliable sources listed in the article. These focus on a whole range of things, including anti-Semitic attacks on the synagogue, their various community programmes and the particular distinguishing point of the drive-through Sukkah. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 16:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates