Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bet Shira Congregation


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Bet Shira Congregation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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) — Cloudpersona (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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. }. 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 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. 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)
 * Change !vote to Snow Keep. Epeefleche, you've done it again! This page is now too well-referenced to stay listed at AfD. Yoninah (talk) 21:27, 26 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? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  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)
 * That's where you're wrong. It is your job. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  UK EYES ONLY  ─╢ 20:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Basket -- let me correct that. It is your job.  Nominations that are absurd -- if the editor takes the time to do a google search first -- are manifestly disruptive.  You've received this feedback both on your talkpage, at various AFDs you've brought (that were of the same ilk), and at AN/I.  I've little question, based on the energy in the reactions to your nominations, that if it continues an RFC will be brought, which I generally view as a waste of time for all involved, and therefore a bad result.  My suggestion is that you heed the consensus reaction to your slew of nominations that you would not have made, had you done a wp:before search.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ep, I realize and appreciate that WP:BEFORE is best practices, but is also isn't policy and isn't required. That said I think I will start to do it for now on, if only to avoid the uprising. Basket of Puppies  17:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:BEFORE makes a lot of sense when one is looking at a single article, particularly an article recently created by a newbie. Unfortunately, there are situations on Wikipedia where large numbers of low-content pages are created, often in rapid-fire succession, by users who are oblivious to WP:Notability and/or WP:Verifiability. (For example, this happened a few months ago with Roman Catholic parishes in the northeastern states.) To insist that the nominator must individually fully research each and every apparently nonnotable article before nominating it (probably doing more work than the article's creator did in the first place) is to say that Wikipedia must give up any effort toward quality control. BoP may have been overly eager about nominating articles about synagogues for deletion, but his eagerness may be explained by the fact that he found a large inventory of similar articles with no apparent notability. --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For articles with no apparent notability, PROD is the approach that wp affords. For AfD, in contrast, the nom should follow wp:before.  This is clear in both wp:before, the reactions at this and various other AfDs, the reaction on nom's talkpage, and the reaction at nom's AN/I.  The community has now spoken rather strongly to this issue, specifically to nom here, and to this slew of AfDs which appear to me to have an exceedingly low rate of success (I would be curious if someone would indicate how many synagogues Basket has nom'd for deletion this past week or two, and how many of them at the end of the day the community agreed should be deleted).  In any event, the most important take-away for me on the posts on this page is Basket's above highly mature response to the effect that he will start to perform wp:before searches now, in light of the community's reaction.  I very much appreciate his taking note of the community reaction -- that is, at the end of the day, what this collaborative enterprise is all about.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be nice for WP:BEFORE to be formalized. Basket of Puppies  17:45, 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. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  co-prince  ─╢ 16:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The breadth and scope of the dozens of reliable sources about the congregation and its events go a long way to establishing notability. Alansohn (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The significant number of reliable sources in the article attest to the congregation's notability. Jayjg (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.