Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Beth-El (San Antonio)


 * 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 - (Closing somewhat early as alot of sources have been added to the article, now Passes GNG with flying colours) (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 04:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Temple Beth-El (San Antonio)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many sources exist, and they reflect that this is a large, historic, and important congregation, led by a series of influential rabbis who have played a substantial role in political and social issues in Texas.  I have added some content and sources to the article. -Arxiloxos (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep; significant coverage exists; more than enough to satisfy GNG. Arxiloxo's additions suffice, but a longer article could be written. Kuru   (talk)  00:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep. Meets GNG.  Per the above.
 * I note this nom is also attempting to delete a number of other synagogue articles, which also appear to have the requisite coverage. See the 5-top-listed articles nominated by him, today, here. Epeefleche (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi - Until  added additional citations to several of the articles, all 5 had no more than a single external reference (including this article, or in one case, two brief mentions), which clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG.  Not sure what you're insinuating by your above comment, but it clearly does not adhere to WP:AGF.  This came about as a result of another editor who had an article which could only reference the synagogue's own webpage (it had several other references, but none which spoke to the synagogue itself), who has been declined several times by different editors at AfC.  To defend his article's lack of references, he mentioned 6 other synagogues, which I took a look at.  Due to the dearth of references on 5 of those articles, since they clearly did not meet WP:GNG, I nominated them for deletion.  I didn't nominate the 6th (Beth Sholom Congregation (Frederick, Maryland)), since that clearly did meet GNG.Onel5969 (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * By your comment, I assume that in your deciding whether to assert that an article fails to meet GNG, you only looked at the refs in the article itself? And did not independently google for refs that were not in the article, but that did in fact satisfy GNG? Is my understanding correct? Epeefleche (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The reliable and verifiable sources in the article pass the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2015 (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.