Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Emanuel (Cherry Hill, New Jersey)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Temple Emanuel (Cherry Hill, New Jersey)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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) 22:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete individual places of worship are not notable, this article is not referenced at all. It has no claim to fame let alone references to back it up. Move to a Judaism in x state article perhaps?Yotemordis (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note. User:Yotemordis is blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. --Lambiam 01:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as there are at least 130 Reform Judaism synagogues like this in Category:Reform synagogues in the United States. Synagogues are not infinite in number (there probably are not more than about one thousand Reform Judaism Temples in North America) and they are not required to have "national" fame to be notable. The nominator should note WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, WP:CHANCE, WP:COMPETENCE especially by nominating three synagogues in a row for deletion rather than first seeking input from the articles' creators as well as from seasoned Judaic editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * NOTE related discussions regarding User excessive deletionism at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. IZAK (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That discussion has been archived at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive705. --Orlady (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per IZAK's reasoning. Tinton5 (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article has no sources at all, and I could not find any reliable sources showing enough coverage to establish notability. The only argument being asserted here is an appeal to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --  At am a  頭 18:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have added some sources, and a few notable facts about the synagogue. At least its sourced now. Tinton5 (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - I still don't think it meets WP:N but those sources help with WP:V, thanks Tinton5. :) --  At am a  頭 23:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. IZAK's reasoning is a personal attack against the nominator and also a textbook example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The congregation is unnotable and the article is ripe for deletion. Basket of Puppies  08:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I see any personal attack. In any event, even if there were one, that strikes me as perhaps a surprising # 1 reason for a keep vote.  As to otherstuffexists, that guideline clearly states that such "comparisons ... may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."  That is what I see as Izak's effort here -- he does have more than one part to his argument.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've added sources and cleaned up the material there. It's the largest Reform synagogue in New Jersey, which has the second highest proportion of Jews of any state in the U.S. (after New York). Of course it's notable. Jayjg (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per updates since afd was initiated.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I didn't check the form of article at the time that it was nominated, but at this point without even doing a wp:before search the article itself reflects sufficient RS sourcing to evidence it notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Seems notable to me, and in fact seems like the very kind of information that a person would hope to find on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfass (talk • contribs)
 * Keep as Epeefleche--Yoavd (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Izak et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The arguments which have been made to keep this article include, "there are at least 130 Reform Judaism synagogues like this in Category:Reform synagogues in the United States." which amounts to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; "nominating three synagogues in a row for deletion rather than first seeking input from the articles' creators" which is not a reason to keep an article, and in fact once a questionable article has been discovered by an editor it is normal quality control practice to take a look at other articles created by that same editor to see if similar problems exists as noted in this response by an admin to the same claim . One of the only arguments so far which seems to be potentially legitimate are that it is the largest reform synagogue in New Jersey, but that is only documented through an audio media release on a podcast. I have tried to search for reliable source coverage to establish the notability of such a claim and have not been able to locate it.  The other notability claim is that it is a record holder for the largest number of simultaneous dreidel spins, which the cited source states was broken by Yeshiva University .  The notability of this type of record is questionable in the first place, as the only coverage I am able to find of it is the fact that the record was broken.  Even if this is the only documented claim of notability, it appears to fall under WP:ONEEVENT.  There has been some additional sourcing added by Jayjg, but the sources appear to be passing references as well.  Overall it still seems most appropriate to delete as this appears to be a large run of the mill synagogue with no particular notability documented.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Credible claims of notability with appropriate sources to back the claim. Alansohn (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable as the largest Reform synagogue in New Jersey and for attention received for the dreidel-spinning record, both of which claims are sourced. Having said that: The claim that this article should be kept because there are many other articles about Reform synagogues carries no weight -- see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also, the article has many nonencyclopedic details, such as the biographies of every rabbi and assistant rabbi, that should be trimmed/deleted. --Orlady (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. With 8 Keep !votes in a row, and an overwhelming consensus to keep, I for one would not be against this being snow-closed if someone saw fit, to save the community further time needlessly spent on this.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Orlady, have you been able to find a reliable source for the claim of largest reform synagogue in New Jersey? The current sourcing is a media release podcast from the synagogue.  I, for one, would like to see such a fact be reported in a reliable secondary source, as that is the only truly notable aspect of this synagogue.  The record which has been broken never seemed to garner much secondary source coverage to establish notability, and even if it did, it was a single event.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:02, 22 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.