Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Anshe Amunim (Pittsfield, Massachusetts)


 * 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. There are enough arguments being made here by long-term and experienced hands at AFD that sources should exist. Based on this, I find it impossible to conclude that there is a consensus for deletion here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Temple Anshe Amunim (Pittsfield, Massachusetts)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article lacks independent sources, fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. TM 11:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment All I can find is 1 and 2 and a passing mention here. JTdale   Talk 11:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good beginnings. IZAK (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep because the article is a WP:STUB, appears to be WP:N, see WP:DONOTDEMOLISH & WP:CHANCE. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:46, 13 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/Congregation Tiferes Yisroel (2nd nomination) & Articles for deletion/Congregation Arugas Habosem & Articles for deletion/Anshei Sfard (Louisville, Kentucky) & Articles for deletion/Beth HaMedrosh Hagodol-Beth Joseph & Articles for deletion/Congregation Shomrei Emunah & 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) 23:46, 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) 23:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note the alternative spellings "Anshe Amonim", (used for most of the congregation's history, sometimes misspelled "Anshe Amonai") and "Anshe Emunim". הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 00:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (aka "Hasirpad") note that the key word "congregation" (you use it) 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) 06:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Only references are connected to the subject of the article, therefore it fails the WP:GNG requirement of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Community input has been requested, see Village pump (miscellaneous). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;Not seeing anything in the way of WP:RS that would establish notability. The history of Congregation Anshe Amonim might be useful if someone could track down a copy (thanks to הסרפד for the alternate spelling tip), but at 11 pages and with no publication information I doubt we'd consider it to be independent.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient information for a congregation with a very long existence. The current building may be new, but not the congregation.  DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the information provided is independent of the organization.--TM 00:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * TM, I think that's understood. This is a genuine difference of opinion.  It's likely, and perhaps even near-certain, that local reliable sources exist that would establish notability.  Reasonable people can disagree whether that means we should have no article until that information is unearthed, only a stub article, or an article with not much in the way of WP:RS for the immediate future.  Where existing institutions are concerned, I prefer to be a more conservative (congregations that no longer exist would have a lower bar, in my opinion, because there's less opportunity for tomfoolery).  The community may prefer DGG's interpretation, and that's fine.  WP:RS is a means to an end, after all, and where it interferes with getting to that end (as I think DGG might argue it does here), we're free to ignore or amend it.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'd like to see other documentation supporting that it is the 4th oldest congregation of its type in its area, but that is an assertion of significance and I am inclined to believe it is true.  Search of New York Times yields 9 hits under "Anshe Amium" which are funerals and weddings conducted there, and 7 similar but older hits under one of its alternative names, Anshe Amonim, by the way.  I believe there will exist significant coverage of the congregation and its buildings in sources not online, not yet identified in the article, so best to keep and let it be developed. -- do  ncr  am  03:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wedding and funeral announcements are routine coverage, not significant coverage. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say otherwise, about the weddings and funerals, though they do suggest some notability of people associated with the congregation. I just looked in the NYTimes database.  Again, I think 4th-oldest Reform congregation in New England is a fairly significant assertion, and I expect that there will exist significant coverage of the congregation and its buildings in sources not online, not yet identified in the article, so best to keep and let it be developed. -- do  ncr  am  14:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment to answer the question asked by : We seem to use the term "Reliable Sources" in two meanings: sources that are sufficiently reliable and substantial and independent to show notability by the very fact that they exist, thus demonstrating that others think the subject important to write about, & therefore satisfying the GNG; and sources reliable enough to establish a fact. In the case of plain facts, such sources need not be independent--information about when an organization was founded & who started it, & who the leaders have been are the sort of facts for which an organization's own publications can be trusted unless there is reason to doubt them--as sometimes does happen. The argument for notability here is that what these sources show is sufficient to demonstrate notability in an ordinary sense, and that we should accept this sense, not necessarily following the limitations of the GNG. I think we should in general--the GNG is over-rated in importance-by now I think we all realize that its requirements ( substantiality, independence, etc. are terms that can be interpreted in many ways, depending primarily upon whether we want to find a subject notable. Given any particular situation (including this one) most of us are capable of constructing an argument using them in either direction. That doesn't necessarily mean using the GNG is worthless, because some interpretations will be more strained than others. It does mean it has to be seen as a guide only, one  among others. Regardless of what' was written down 10 years ago, that is what we now do in practice.  DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Doncram's findings. Right now, the article has no independent sources: no secondary sources whatsoever.  If Doncram's discovered nothing beyond trivial things happening at the building, there's really no solid online coverage of this place.  We can't retain just anything that predates the Internet because it might have print coverage: by that argument, we'd keep any biography of a person who's older than Al Gore.  I will happily change my vote if I know that someone's produced solid offline coverage, but unless that should happen, we have to delete, because we don't make decisions on predictions.  Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh??? I don't like the personal tone in Nyttend's comment.  Some disclosure:  he and I have past history.  What is the statement that if i personally haven't discovered something, there must not be anything?  Is that sarcasm?  Given past history, i doubt the comment was meant to credit me with any positive skill.  Anyhow, I had the NYTimes database open for something else and ran a quick search, that's all.  I make no assertion that I did anywhere near a complete job in searching in news databases that are available to me and probably others here.  And, for another thing, the comment's linking to wp:CRYSTALBALL seems odd as there are no predictions within the article.  Nyttend, please don't make any further comment about me here and I will not make any further comment about you.  You used my name twice, i used yours twice, let's stop. -- do  ncr  am  15:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your findings showed that there was no substantial coverage. I marvel that you instantly made this personal, commenting on the contributor instead of the contribution in defiance of our expected standards of behavior and decorum; once again, I warn you that any more of this will result in a request for arbitration enforcement.  I came here to participate in the AFD, not to hear your comments on my motives.  Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Umm, I further disagree with the comment that my findings show there exist no substantial coverage. It's hard to prove a negative like that, and I have clearly disavowed doing any serious attempt to research available news databases.
 * And, umm, i absolutely did not comment on your motives; i said there is past history, which you confirm.  I do comment that your reasoning is off-base, about the article:  you assert that if doncram's search in NYTimes database doesn't come up with substantial coverage, then no substantial coverage exists, which is just bizarre.  Only NYTimes coverage is valid?  You don't answer the question, what did you mean by your statement about me.  And I find that your commenting about me including invoking my name twice is odd, given that, indeed, you have several times stated "warnings" about personally-directed comments.  So you yourself, please don't make personally-directed comments, then, like you did here first, and which you have done again. -- do  ncr  am  01:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

-- do ncr  am  01:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Further sourcing is available and should be added, but the claims of notability are appropriately supported in the article. Alansohn (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Alansohn, what did you find? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Over century old notable organization as outlined in sources above and in article.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:08, 15 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.