Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Tiferes Yisroel (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Congregation Tiferes Yisroel
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No claims to notability or independent sources. TM 02:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: No coverage in independent sources beyond passing mentions; nor do I expect any, as a neo-Hasidic shtiebel is quite WP:ROUTINE. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 15:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep since this is a unique WP:N Hasidic Orthodox synagogue located in Baltimore, Maryland, USA, a city not noted for its Hasidic presence so this makes this synagogue even more noteworthy in that context. This article survived an AfD in 2007 Articles for deletion/Congregation Tiferes Yisroel and has withstood the test of time, so it is very surprising that the nominator has nominated not just this synagogue but another one at the same time as well for "deletion", see Articles for deletion/Congregation Arugas Habosem. There are many things that make this a keep, starting with two recent additions in it: 1 "In 2011 the shul [synagogue] celebrated its 25th year. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore recognized this milestone by proclaiming March 13, 2011, Rabbi Menachem Goldberger Day in recognition of his service to the Baltimore community." 2 In 2013-2014 Tiferes Yisroel became apparently the only American Jewish institution to accept bitcoin for dues, donations, and other payments. The congregation stopped accepting bitcoin after the collapse of the Mt. Gox bitcoin exchange."Bitcoin Bites the Dust at Baltimore Shul After MtGox Goes Bust" (from The Jewish Daily Forward, March 11, 2014.) The nominator should withdraw this ill-advised nominations as soon as possible. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wiki is not a catalog or directory of synagogues- NN. In addition, there seems to be Original Research in the process of arguing for keep.--Jayrav (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

1: The article is about Goldberger, not really about his synagogue. 2 is the only significant source, in my opinion. 3 is a mere listing, as would be expected in a comprehensive report. (4, 5 and 9 are passing mentions, and are only intended to support details.) 6 is a blog. 7 seems promotional, and is not in-depth in any sense. 8 is commercial, a product listing. 10 and 11 are in-depth coverage of a trivial aspect of the congregation riding on a popular recent bit of news. How does this make the synagogue notable? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've just read one source.  The Forward article.  That is certainly an RS.  And the article is certainly more than a passing mention of the synagogue.  None of the delete !votes seem to have considered it, as they all ignore it or claim that no such article exists or talk solely about directories. Did nom surface it and review it in his wp:before search -- his nomination sounds like he was focusing only on what appeared in the article itself, though I could be mistaken.  Did the editors read it in forming their !votes? Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed note that the key word "Congregation"  because this article (and similar ones) are about congregations, not just the buildings in which they worship. Also, on WP there are general consensuses relating to deletion that aren't formally codified in the deletion guidelines; for example, there is apparently some long-standing consensus that every single high school on the planet is notable, regardless of age, size of student body, availability of reliable secondary sources, etc. Along those lines, there appears to be a general consensus that significant age does impart at least some degree of notability to a synagogue, despite what the subjective importance essay says. IZAK (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:N. I just expanded the article with reliable sources. The synagogue is a noteworthy institution in Baltimore and has received quite a few mentions outside Maryland. Yoninah (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Nominator, User aka "TM", seems to have started an arbitrary process of eliminating articles about Orthodox Judaism synagogues from Category:Orthodox synagogues in the United States, he is requested to stop this process of mass nominations for deletions without further discussions and requests for improvement of the articles. So far he has nominated for deletion these articles: Articles for deletion/Beth HaMedrosh Hagodol-Beth Joseph & Articles for deletion/Congregation Arugas Habosem & Articles for deletion/Anshei Sfard (Louisville, Kentucky) & Articles for deletion/Congregation Beth Israel (Malden, Massachusetts) that looks like its heading for mass deletions in this area. The nominator is requested to consider WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE and to please start a discussion or a WP:RFC if he feels such articles are not up to snuff at a venue of his choosing, or at WP:TALKJUDAISM that would make the most sense. Quite frankly this is not the best time to start a move to delete any synagogue articles given that the current Israel-Gaza conflict is now so hot that it is spilling over into attacks on synagogues in France, see Protesters scuffle with police at Paris synagogues (AP, July 13, 2014), and the problem is growing, so it behooves any editor undertaking such deletions to proceed with great care in order to avoid any semblance of impropriety until the temperature surrounding the role and place of synagogues as current flashpoints of conflict stops. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Request for Comment: An RfC that concerns this AfD has been opened. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Community input has been requested, see Village pump (miscellaneous). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;The article is now, in my opinion, adequately sourced. Thanks to both the nominator and the editors who helped establish notability.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The reliable and verifiable sources included in the article establish notability for the synagogue. Alansohn (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per GNG. I advise the nominator to in the future perform the required wp:before search, if he did not do so here.  There is no need for the RS sourcing to be reflected in the article (which it appears may have been nom's assertion in his nomination) -- it need merely exist. Epeefleche (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: despite Yoninah's extensive sourcing and rewriting efforts, I think the article still does not the notability criteria. Users Alansohn, Lesser Cartographies and Epeefleche believe that the new sources are sufficient; I disagree, and will analyze the sources (numbered according to this revision).
 * I don't even have to read through the refs, but will jump right to the last two. Hasirpad dismisses articles about the congregation's acceptance of bitcoins as "trivial" and "popular".  Well, notability is built on popularity -- and of course we have oodles of articles about "popular" topics that some editors (including me) think trivial ... but our POV is not relevant, if the RSs cover the topic "in depth" as Hasirpad admits these articles do.  And in-depth coverage is what we look for in GNG.  Editors have to park their personal views as to whether a topic is "trivial", and accept that RS coverage is the key. Epeefleche (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I should have foreseen that my poorly-written sentence would be misunderstood. "Trivial" was meant in an objective sense; not "unencyclopedic" (I have no POV here that I am aware of) but "not of central importance to subject". (Thought experiment: imagine an opening sentence "... is a synagogue known for accepting Bitcoin".) הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 20:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as it is covered, with in-depth coverage (as here), we really shouldn't care that our personal point of view is that the coverage is trivial (in our subjective sense; it's not objective). As far as I'm concerned, if the coverage were because a synagogue were openly polyamorous, or kept real lions adjacent to the ark rather than sculptures of them, or were the oldest synagogue in the world, or were the smallest in the world, or had a chimp as the rabbi ... I would not substitute my judgment that the matter is "trivial" with the judgment of the RSs that it is worthy of full-length articles.  And that is what we look for at AfD. Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Question and Suggestion It appears there are enough synagogues in Baltimore, present and past, that a combination article might be possible; I even think that would be more useful than separate ones.  DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, I concur with User:הסרפד's analysis of the sources; we have one good one, followed by a bunch of trivial mentions and bitcoincruft that could not be considered "substantial", as required by the WP:GNG, by any stretch of the imagination. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:34, 20 July 2014 (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.