Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Beth Sholom (Cherry Hill, New Jersey) (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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Temple Beth Sholom (Cherry Hill, New Jersey)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article was previously nominated for Afd, but in the process a copyvio was discovered and it was speedy deleted. It has now been recreated, but the original Afd nomination reasons still hold: This appears to be a run of the mill Synagogue that fails to have any specific notability per WP:NONPROFIT or WP:GNG. I tried to find any evidence of it being a nationally famous local organization, but failed to. I have also found no evidence of particularly unique longevity, size of membership, major achievements, or prominent scandals. In terms of GNG, I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage for any general factors either. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I was in the middle of expanding this article. There are several sources to establish its notability. Here are some examples: (mentions Rabbi Micah Peltz of TBS at bottom of page),  (mentions TBS is affiliated with an agricultural org),  (this states an event at TBS with the NBC sportscaster Jimmy Roberts),  (TBS brochure),  (I admit, this article is mainly about the rabbi, but if read carefully it also gives some info on the synagogue),  (page on the Cherry Hill Shul, who are members of TBS, making donations to the National Guard), here's an article about the cantor raising money for the community: . Tinton5 (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thank you for suggesting some links. I have now read these links as well, and am still having trouble finding anything that conveys notability on the synagogue.  The first link has a passing quote about an entirely different topic than the synagogue by the rabbi of the synagogue.  It wouldn't even be enough to confer notability on the rabbi, much less the synagogue.  The second link is not a reliable source, but even if it was it talks about the establishment of the Hazon CSA of Southern New Jersey and makes passing reference to the synagogue being a partner of it.  The third is an event announcement in a local paper, not substantial coverage which establishes notability.  The fourth is a brochure produced by the synagogue - a self-source - which by definition can not establish notability and I'm surprised would be quoted as such in a deletion discussion.  The fifth focuses on the rabbi, not the synagogue.  The sixth is a passing reference in a local religious paper.  And the seventh is yet another event announcement.  The entire mention is, "Lunch and Learn on Monday, May 2 at Temple Beth Sholom, 1901 Kresson Rd., Cherry Hill. You bring the Lunch and we’ll bring the Learn, 12:15 to 1:15 p.m. Call 856-751-6663." in a local paper - this is not substantial reliable source secondary coverage to establish notability.  The sum total of the seven additional sources, if these are some of the best sources available (which it does in fact appear to be), is that the synagogue is not notable.  Putting sources such as these forth just strengthens the case of non-notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Coverage relating to famous rabbi + famous congregants (Mitch Albom, Stephen Spielberg) + assorted other coverage as noted above = notable. (Note that some of the sources (mis)spell the congregation's name as "Beth Shalom".--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please take a look at the sources mentioned above a little more closely rather than just looking at the fact that there are seven of them. None of them provide any notability for the synagogue if you read them instead of counting them.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - To User:ConcernedVancouverite: The links I have provided are in fact notable to the synagogue. Some may focus specifically on the rabbi, clergy and events related to the synagogue, but isn't all of this apart of the congregation? This seems clearly notable to me. Also, your accusation and assumption of User:Gene93k just counting the number of sources and not reading them is clearly ridiculous. This sudden streak of deletion is getting insane. Synagogues are places of worship, each are unique in their own ways. Tinton5 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to look more carefully at the refs before !voting, but from what I've seen here and elsewhere I concur with Tinton's post.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Apparently Steven Spielberg's family were congregants when he was a boy. (See http://books.google.com/books?id=DbqATVZHvkQC and search on "Beth Shalom.") Notability is not inherited (the temple is not notable because of a connection with a famous person), but that connection might have caused it to have received significant outside attention. --Orlady (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thank you for that link, Orlady. I had turned up a few other sources that linked Spielberg with Rabbi Lewis of this congregation.  But those sources all mentioned the connection with the Rabbi rather than the synagogue.  The bulk of those, as I recall from my earlier search, were around the time of the obit for the Rabbi, which basically attributed having taught Spielberg as one of his accomplishments in his life.  I agree with you fully that this does not confer notability on the synagogue unless there is significant reliable source coverage of the synagogue itself.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep clear case of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and violation of WP:AGF because User was in the midst of revamping and improving this article. 2nd nominations to delete should not come within a week of the 1st nomination. Based on the citations coming in it's notable as a synagogue. IZAK (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * IZAK, this is not a violation of process. The first AfD discussion ended because the article was speedy-deleted as a copyvio. This is a new (and different) article and the discussion is appropriately focused on the notability of the topic, per WP:N and WP:ORG. There is nothing preventing the article creator (or anyone else) from expanding and improving the article during the 7-day AfD discussion. --Orlady (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as IZAK --Yoavd (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. There is ample RS coverage. Including the dozen or so refs I just added.  Given that all 5 commentators [now all 10 commentators, with the 5 that follow this !vote] have found this to be a "Keep", I would not be against anyone closing this as a snow close, if the urge fell upon them, to save the community further time that could be used to address more borderline AFDs.  Concerned has, as has been pointed out, now nominated a number of synagogues for deletion that (from what I can see) will all be kept; he may wish to consider whether there is a gap between his view of what constitutes "notability" for wp purposes, and what the consensus view is--again, to save the community time in the future.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable, as indicated by both its large size, and the reliable sourcing in the article and on this AfD page. Jayjg (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I wouldn't call this "clearly notable," but the size, association with a rabbi who was a leader in the Jewish community, and famous former congregants make me think that it's probably notable. The recent discovery of a few third-party sources (not all of which are WP:RS and none of which are individually sufficient to establish notability) supports my conclusion of "probably notable." --Orlady (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * weak keep Sources as given seem to demonstrate notability, although it does seem possibly borderline. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * NOTE the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. IZAK (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I fail to see the relevance of that here, IZAK as the editor being discussed in that incident has not participated in this AfD at all. Are you Canvassing here for other to join that discussion? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per ╟─ Treasury  Tag ►  fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale  ─╢ 07:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cited sources pass GNG. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:03, 28 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.