Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohev Shalom Talmud Torah Congregation of Olney (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   keep. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 18:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ohev Shalom Talmud Torah Congregation of Olney
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

does not meet WP:ORG. Houses of worship have no inherit notability. Nothing historic happened here, no architectural significance, not the "first" of anything, not even old. John from Idegon (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy close (Struck, see below.  הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 03:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)) : Déjà vu? You had just agreed to redirect.  הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 16:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I did, and I got an admin to close it and I redirected it. Another user came along and undid it.  Has yet to add a reference to notability, but still had to undo it. Probably because there aren't any.  If the legal case wasn't noted anywhere it says nothing about notability, and an article about a rabbi that worked there doesn't either. John from Idegon (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice that you redirect had been reverted; the nearly identical nomination rationale confused me. I've struck my "speedy close" vote accordingly. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 03:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep because 1 the article has been re-written and updated with WP:V & WP:RS, 2 in addition the ongoing leader and rabbi of this synagogue is WP:N as many of the footnotes and citations in the sources located at the bottom of the article prove this, he has been cited in scholarly publications for his rabbinical work e.g. see this Oxford University Press publication (PDF), see p. 7 which is part of a co-joined kollel and Jewish outreach center of the synagogue. 3 The synagogue was involved in a serious legal dispute with the former synagogue it was part of as reported in The Washington Post  . 4 In addition, please note the key word "Congregation" also known in Hebrew as a Kehilla because this article (and similar ones) are about congregations, not just the buildings in which they worship. 5 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. 6 It is also unfortunate and insensitive that this AfD pops up when there is still the ongoing issue regarding RfC:...mass AfDs of articles about Orthodox synagogues. 7 Therefore the nominator is respectfully requested to withdraw his nomination as the article now meets all WP requirements of WP:NPOV with more than sufficient verifiable and reliable sources. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Coverage that would show the Rabbi to be notable still would not make the congregation notable, but i haven't seen anything that makes him notable either. Despite the claims made above, most of the sourcing is not of the WP:RS type (most are content from websites and non-reviewed academic papers).  Of the potentially reliable sources, all but two are affiliated with the denomination and hence are not WP:INDY, so they cannot speak to notability.  There are two newspapers (3 articles total).  Two of the articles speak about a court case and not much on the temple itself.  The third one is a local paper giving the expected coverage of the opening of a new house of worship.  No secondary reliable sourcing from outside Metro DC, so even with the rather weighty addition, still fails WP:ORG.   The article is also written in a manner that would be hard to understand without at least a working knowledge of Judaism.  That isn't the proper tone for an article here to take, but that is no reason to delete it.  Lack of notability certainly is. John from Idegon (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * John from Idegon—the rabbi is part of the congregation. You are saying "Coverage that would show the Rabbi to be notable still would not make the congregation notable, but i haven't seen anything that makes him notable either." He is a rabbi in addition to being part of the congregation. But he is a part of the congregation. The rabbi makes use of the synagogue setting just as any other congregant. For instance there is the need for a minyan. The rabbi is availing himself of the others in order to satisfy religious requirements such as the need for a minyan. I think many other examples can be given as well in which the rabbi is as much dependent on the other congregants as the other congregants are dependent on the congregational rabbi. This is not just an employee/employer relationship. I notice you saying on your Talk page, "Having a notable employee does not make any organization notable." I don’t think this represents a correct understanding of the situation. An institution (any institution) has an ongoing intellectual thread. A rabbi is chosen by a congregation because certain ideas that the rabbi holds are consistent with certain ideas held by most of the congregation. Bus stop (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The incorrect understanding is on you, . Just read WP:INHERIT.  The entire thing about the rabbi is a red herring. John from Idegon (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * a rabbi of a synagogue is a "herring"? Nice joke! a rabbi and a synagogue/congregation/yeshiva/Hasidic dynasty go together like a "horse and carriage". It starts with Moses who according to Judaism was the first rabbi and the Children of Israel were his congregation, and it continues to this day. Have you even read this article seriously and not with an eye to get rid of it? Rabbi Shaya Milikowsky has been the one to lead this congregation from the start. He led the legal breakaway from the "mother congregation" it sprung from. He has made this into a unique congregation with a direct connection to a kollel which he also heads (and anyone who does not know what these terms mean should not be discussing this subject), and this rabbi that you just don't WP:LIKE has added an adult educational outreach center, and a program for less Jewishly religious families and children, all in the course of about a decade in real life, real time, with real efforts noted by the verifiable sources. This is all new in that location and it is both significant and encyclopedic. Now it also happens to be that as far as Orthodox Judaism is concerned the rabbi is well-known in his own right and is cited in the relevant literature that looks into these kind of communally active rabbis. Not sure why you are denigrating the excellent sources, including from Oxford University Press in England and Bar Ilan University in Israel. From where else should a successful rabbi be recognized, from China or from the Catholic Church? In any case, WP does not require that articles about any subject be plu-perfect amazing finished products on the level of a groundbreaking study and cutting edge research. As long as sufficient WP:V & WP:RS are cited, and in this case the rabbi is WP:N as well, and the article adheres to WP:NPOV this article definitely meets all the basic WP requirements and it therefore is difficult to see why you are applying the most microscopic and obtuse "rules" that just looks like a desperate effort at WP:LAWYERING stemming from a severe case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. At this rate fictional and Walt Disney characters, even minor ones like "Tinkerbell" would not stand a chance in hell of being on WP because they are less than "red herrings" since they don't even exist in reality and have done nothing anywhere at any time ever. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. The article under discussion fits well within Wikipedia's scope. It is an institution not unlike an arts institution or an institution of secular education. Wikipedia has articles on relatively small institutions. An example might be Timbo High School. Wikipedia has articles on many such relatively small United States high schools. Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The article, as expanded, provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Schools have been granted a blanket notability for high schools only. This has been policy for a long time.  No such policy exists for local houses of worship.  If you want to argue the merits of a policy, start an RfC or take it to the village pump.  I would appreciate it if you would keep your arguments here based in policy, not what you wish the policy would be.  A house of worship, just like an art museum, still has to pass WP:ORG and this one doesn't. What portion of Wikipedia's scope do local houses of worship fall under? John from Idegon (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: or perhaps "weak delete", because I am relying on common sense to ignore the coverage of the court case, not on policy-based arguments (the case was covered not because of Ohev Shalom of Olney significance, but because of Ohev Shalom of Washington) . The other sources (those that I have sampled: a few, maybe most) seem to be either passing mentions or directory listings, or else are not sufficiently independent. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 03:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia has many similar articles on relatively small United States high schools. --Yoavd (talk) 08:06, 29 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.