Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Emanu-El (Miami Beach, Florida)


 * 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. It's snowing. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Temple Emanu-El (Miami Beach, Florida)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable religious organization. Not demonstration of notability. Basket of Puppies 17:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * keep Quite a few sources out there even from just a cursory examination. Examples include this article which discusses in part the synagogue's response to the Conservative decision to allow female Rabbis. It is unfortunate that Basket is nominating so many articles about congregations for deletion in such a short time. It makes it much more difficult to find sources within a reasonable timeframe. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This institution, originally known as the Miami Beach Jewish Center is a landmark of the Miami Jewish community.  In addition to the  extensive news coverage, it is discussed in scholarly literature, such as Deborah Dash Moore, To the golden cities: pursuing the American Jewish dream in Miami and L.A. (Harvard University Press, 1996), ISBN 978-0674893054 and many others --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, per JoshuaZ and Arxiloxos. There are a rich set of reliable sources on this synagogue. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jayjg (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep on the strength of the sources that found. ╟─ Treasury  Tag ►  Captain-Regent  ─╢ 19:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Arxiloxos. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The available sources seem to establish notability. The number of synagogues raised for AfD the past couple of days, with some of them easily identifiable as notable, is troublesome to me. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ &lrm; 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per nom. Monterey Bay (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. Per all the above.  It appears that nom either: a) is failing to perform the wp:before search that he is required to perform before bringing such nominations, or b) fails to understand the concept of notability in the wp world.  It may be that he would be well served by taking a break from such clearly improper nominations until he better understands, and accepts, the two concepts.  Failure by him to do so could, perhaps, suggest something short of good faith in his nominations.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the above. It is becoming increasingly difficult to take the nominator seriously because he has made no effort to engage editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM who would have the potential interest in working with him to resolve his concerns. Never in the history of synagogue articles on WP have so many articles about Jewish synagogues been nominated for deletion within days starting from here to those he has attacked so far:, , , , , , , , plus requesting speedy deletion of many others: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (and more such efforts) within so short a span of time by one user, i.e. }. How much longer will this go on and be tolerated? This type of gung-ho come-what-may rigid "enforcement" deletionism automatically undermines WP:CONSENSUS-building and is bound to lead to future WP:EDITWARRING as more editors with a genuine interest in this topic feel violated and outraged as it undermines WP:AGF when such a wave of actions are conducted giving expert editors limited ability to improve the articles. IZAK (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * NOTE the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. IZAK (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 23 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.