Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation M'Kor Shalom


 * 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. The recent edits established notability and resulted in late consensus to keep. Orlady (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Congregation M'Kor Shalom

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It sounds like the only notability claim is that the Rabbi who founded it was notable. But notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  —  Meph talk 21:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete individual places of worship are not notable, this article is not referenced at all. It has no claim to fame let alone references to back it up. Move to a Judaism in x state article perhaps?Yotemordis (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note. User:Yotemordis has been blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Jayjg (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as there are at least 130 Reform Judaism synagogues like this in Category:Reform synagogues in the United States. Synagogues are not infinite in number (there probably are not more than about one thousand Reform Judaism Temples in North America) and they are not required to have "national" fame to be notable. The nominator should note WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, WP:CHANCE, WP:COMPETENCE especially by nominating three synagogues in a row for deletion rather than first seeking input from the articles' creators as well as from seasoned Judaic editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * NOTE related discussions regarding User excessive deletionism at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. IZAK (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page is notable because it is home to the infamous Rabbi Neulander (who has a page on here) who committed a serious crime and this was spread throughout the national news headlines (CourtTV at the time, now TruTV, CNN, etc). Article has a source, could def. add a few more and possibly expand a bit, but def. keep, along with the others (Temple Emanuel, and TBS). Notable synagogue for an affluent Jewish community. Tinton5 (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Credible claim of notability with adequate sources available about the congregation that can readily be added. Expansion is what is needed here, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Fred Neulander. I can't find any reliable sources that give significant coverage for this building. The only notability it has is the Rabbi, and per the nominator such notability is not inherited. Give us some sources that actually cover the synagogue, then you can justify this article's existence, but other than that I'm not seeing an argument beyond WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (other synagogues have articles, why not this one?) and a suggestion from two people that the synagogue is notable just because its founder was notable for committing a crime. --  At am a  頭 17:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and/or Redirect This congregation is entirely unnotable by any measure. Delete or redirect is to Neulander. Basket of Puppies  08:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Straight delete, no redirect. This article deals with Fred Neulander. The temple is not notable in and of itself, but perhaps it may someday be. It is not a logical redirect for its ex-rabbi, however. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 *  Delete , per Carrite. Not all places of worship will be notable, and this one appears not to be. That they had a Rabbi who is notable does not make them notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as Tinton5 --Yoavd (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Question, can either of you point to a policy that allows for notability of an individual to be inherited by the place that individual worked? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Izak et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. While I have not yet had time to wade through them, I note that this synagogue has over 100 gbooks hits, 2,000 gnews hits, and 39,000 dozen ghits.  A substantial percentage of the gnews hits, nearly 800, for example, don't even mention the rabbi's name, so it does not seem that notability is only related to his being the rabbi.  While not by itself a measure of notability, as we have to take a look at the refs, such widespread reflection in sources does tend to be a harbinger of notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The arguments which have been made to keep this article include, "there are at least 130 Reform Judaism synagogues like this in Category:Reform synagogues in the United States." which amounts to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; "nominating three synagogues in a row for deletion rather than first seeking input from the articles' creators" which is not a reason to keep an article, and in fact once a questionable article has been discovered by an editor it is normal quality control practice to take a look at other articles created by that same editor to see if similar problems exists as noted in this response by an admin to the same claim ; "This page is notable because it is home to the infamous Rabbi Neulander (who has a page on here)" which as noted in the original nomination falls under WP:NOTINHERITED; and two keep votes which were "per" these arguments. The only argument so far which seems to be potentially legitimate is Epeefleche's comment that there are numerous ghits.  But having taken a pass through some of the hits I have been unable to find any significant reliable source coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have thought you would have done a complete wp:before search prior to your nomination here, looking through all the refs. That might be a step worth considering prior to future noms; it tends to save the nominator and the community time, as it unearths evidence of notability that is not otherwise apparent in articles from time to time.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Of course I conducted my before due diligence, Epeefleche. I always do before any deletion nomination.  I am re-iterating that with all of the additional comments nothing significant has turned up past my initial conclusion that the only claim was the inherited claim. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What suggested to me that you had not done a complete wp:before search was the fact that you just wrote "having taken a pass through some of the hits I have been unable to find any significant reliable source coverage". To me, that (I thought naturally) suggested that you had not taken a pass through all of the hits, as is required, and had not done so prior to your nomination.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Article looks like it is better sourced and expanded. Tinton5 (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The robust coverage of this synagogue in RSs over the years clearly reflects its notability.  Nom's statement that the article was not "referenced at all" served to hide the fact that there are a great number of RS references that could be reflected in the article -- and that, not what is in the article, is our standard at AfD.  Only a few of those RS refs are now reflected in the article itself, but even those show that the synagogue has been mentioned in a number of RSs over the years, and at times the articles have been solely about the activities of the synagogue.  Furthermore, the refs clearly deal with far more than Neulander.  We have some close calls at AFD, but this IMHO is not one of them.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for trying to bolster the article's notability with some additional sources.  But let's look at what has been added to determine if it truly establishes notability for the synagogue itself.  The additions to the article include being the victim of an alleged crime in 1990, "grand jury indicted a man from Brooklyn on charges relating to his alleged theft of Torahs" which there was a single article about in a local paper, and no article confirming that the crime actually happened; a passing reference about purchasing of torahs and other assets from a bankrupt congregation; having a false bomb threat in 1997 reported in a local paper; serving food to and raising money for the homeless; and a passing mention for having purchased stained glass along with several other locations in an article about the stained glass artist.  These combined do not amount to specific notability per WP:NONPROFIT or WP:GNG.  It not appear to be a nationally famous local organization. It does not appear to have particularly unique longevity, size of membership, or major achievements.  It had notable Rabbis.  But notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article contains numerous RS refs, some of them entire articles in significant RSs such as The Philadelphia Inquirer, that are devoted entirely to the synagogue and its activities. We look for notability under wp standards, and this easily surpasses them.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well referenced. --Shuki (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good work by Epeefleche in finding sources on it and documenting its history. But even without Epeefleche's work, factors that should be considered for a WP:NONPROFIT include "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals". Size of membership and prominent scandals certainly apply here. Jayjg (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep because it passes WP:GNG, and for much of the same reasons as I stated that Articles for deletion/Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation (2nd nomination). NOTINHERITED is so complicated, and has common-sense exceptions (for example First Lady).  This is a large congregation (1,000 members today is good), it has been the subject of a major scandal, was noted for several incidents of Anti-semitism, and yes, it had a notable rabbi.  The things that make a church notable probably fly in the face of the reasons that makes a secular place notable or not.   ZAgain, Epeefleche has done another great job rescuing an article. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep In its current state, it clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Kudos to Epeefleche. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, I am swayed due to Epeefleche's work, and Jayjg's argument. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:40, 22 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.