Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri)


 * 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. Overall consensus is for keep, with arguments of satisfaction of WP:NOTE through appropriate source coverage. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Insufficient coverage of reliable sources to demonstrate notability either as a congregation, organization or architectural achievement. Basket of Puppies 05:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep because, rather than writing a nomination statement specific to this case, which would include an explanation of what is wrong with this source, for instance, has written a generic, copy-pasteable WP:JNN argument which doesn't directly address the article in question at all. ╟─TreasuryTag► Captain-Regent ─╢ 12:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, there are also sources such as this and this and this and this and this and this and this out there. ╟─TreasuryTag► sheriff ─╢ 12:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and this and this and this – pretty lame nomination, all in all. ╟─TreasuryTag► Clerk of the Parliaments ─╢ 12:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:BUILDER for my rationale. It might be a notable congregation, but in the current form it is entirely unencyclopedic and does not overcome the notability threshold. Basket of Puppies  12:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I genuinely think you don't understand the concept of notability. Just because the "current form" of an article doesn't demonstrate notability (although it actually does in this case IMO) doesn't mean that the topic is not notable. The threshold for notability is "receiving significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources" – nothing about the current state of the article. I should also point out that WP:BUILDER is just an essay, and a fairly poor one at that, and trumps neither WP:NOTE nor WP:BEFORE. ╟─TreasuryTag► Boothroyd ─╢ 13:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully and completely understand notability. Thank you for your concern. Please see WP:BUILDER for my deletion rationale. As well, this article still does not demonstrate notability. Anyone not seeing this AfD would wonder how the article passes WP:N in its current form. Basket of Puppies  13:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you quote to me the section of WP:NOTE which says that an article's current form must demonstrate notability? ╟─TreasuryTag► fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale ─╢ 13:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. I really do. I am not an eventualist, however. Just because there are references somewhere out there beneath the pale moonlight does not mean that the article is in an encyclopedic form. If the article in question does not use reliable sources and does not demonstrate notability then WP:BUILDER recommends deletion. Basket of Puppies  13:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you are an eventualist is not the point. The official notability requirements are very clear on this point: either a topic is notable or it is not, and that is independent of the current status of the article. If you disagree with the policy, by all means propose changes. But as it stands, eventualism is the standard required. WP:BUILDER is not a policy . WP:NOTE is. ╟─TreasuryTag► senator ─╢ 13:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am entirely willing to be educated and change my ways if you can properly demonstrate to me that I am misinterpreting policy. Are you claiming that an article can pass the notability threshold even if the article in question is not citing a single reliable source and is no more than a single line long and does not assert notability? I recognize that the article in question might have dozens of reliable sources to indicate notability, but for the sake of this scenario we agree that the article does not list a single one. If you can demonstrate that policy allows the keep of these forms of articles then I promise to immediately withdraw any AfDs that fulfill the scenario. Basket of Puppies  13:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you want me to do to "demonstrate" it. To me, and to every other editor commenting on these many AfDs, the policy position is clear. No part of WP:NOTE says that notability is dependent on an article's current state. (New articles are created every day: before they exist, they obviously demonstrate no notability, because they're just a blank page. Do you really think that the subject suddenly bursts into notability the moment the first editor hits 'save'?) ╟─TreasuryTag► fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale ─╢ 13:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This article would be a good example of my scenario. I look forward to your reply as it really will clear up confusion on this issue. Perhaps the best place to continue this discussion is on the appropriate policy talk page? Basket of Puppies  13:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I think you understand mine, so I don't quite see what the issue is here. See WP:FAILN: that says that if the only problem is that an article doesn't currently demonstrate notability, then deletion may not be appropriate. First one should look around to see if sources exist that would make its notability clear, and only if none can be found should it be nominated for deletion. On this page, if you'd done that (looked for sources before nominating for deletion) then you'd have found the sources that I found. ╟─TreasuryTag► assemblyman ─╢ 13:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we simply have a difference of opinion as how to approach and deal with articles such as Lincoln Park Jewish Center that do not assert notability, have no references and are extremely short. I subscribe to WP:BUILDER which suggests that the article be deleted until such time that it can be appropriately developed while you seem to subscribe to the theory that the article can be kept despite the deficiencies. I don't think either opinion is backed up by policy or consensus but is rather judged on a case-by-case basis. Are we agreed on this? Basket of Puppies  13:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry to have to take this tone with you, but I am going to stop replying after this one, because I think you just can't or won't get it and it's a waste of my time continuing. My points are as follows: One—WP:BUILDER is not a policy and is thus more or less irrelevant to this. Two—articles that do not assert notability may still be notable, and should not be nominated for deletion without a decent attempt to find sources for them. ╟─TreasuryTag► Not-content ─╢ 13:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sad to see that you will refuse to continue this discussion. I really thought it was going rather well and we were doing an excellent job of finally understanding each others' opinions. Basket of Puppies  13:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, and trout to the nominator. The subject is clearly notable, per sources provided by TreasuryTag. If the nominator is unhappy with the current state of the article, the proper thing to do is to improve it, rather than to delete an article on a notable subject. Nsk92 (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Nsk92, did you even look at those "sources"? At least one of them is referring to a synagogue in Texas. Another says only that a community meeting was held there. Others are routine press releases.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought you'd be along. Just to be clear: you think the article should be deleted because one of the ~10 sources I produced in a hurry mistakenly referred to the wrong synagogue? Because the others look like they cover the synagogue, and particularly its board/management, in some detail. ╟─TreasuryTag► assemblyman ─╢ 14:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I think it should be deleted because it's two sentences, and nobody's offered sourcing that would allow it to be expanded beyond that. A press release about the current management is not generally encyclopedic. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So that we completely understand one another: you are saying that these articles in an independent newspaper, which are about the synagogue's decision not to merge with another nearby, is not significant coverage? And you are saying that this article in a different independent news source, about the recruitment process for and background of, their new Rabbi, is not significant coverage? (Incidentally, if this is the one you think is about Texas, check again, because it also covers Missouri.) Are you saying that this article in yet another independent news source, covering the organisation's environmental stance, is not significant coverage? Or are you just following me around Wikipedia spuriously disputing everything I do? ╟─TreasuryTag► Odelsting ─╢ 14:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Rabbi Joshua Taub, pictured in the Sanctuary, is the new rabbi at Temple Emmanuel in Beaumont."-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Read on. It gets onto Missouri. ╟─TreasuryTag► pikuach nefesh ─╢ 14:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No wonder I missed it. "In 2003, he transferred to the 275-family Temple Emanuel in St. Louis, where he served until recently." That doesn't establish notability either. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Community uniting to reverse sprawl trend in Winston-Salem"-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you're only interested in (attempted) point-scoring against me, so I'll withdraw from bickering with you after reminding you of what I said above. I pulled up about ten sources in a hurry. Perhaps some of them were mistaken. Others definitely weren't. ╟─TreasuryTag► sundries ─╢ 14:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And I'm up to _three_ of the sources being in other states, now that I'm reading them in detail. All the testl.org PDFs are local coverage that does not establish notability. The two Jewish in St. Louis links are about the correct temple are press releases, and do not establish notability. One of the STLToday links merely reproduces one of the press releases. The other merely mentions that Temple Emanuel didn't choose to merge with the subject of the article -- again, local coverage that does not establish notability. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I ask you to remind me which part of WP:N says that what you call "local coverage" does not count towards notability? Because I was under the impression that WP:GNG said, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag► pikuach nefesh ─╢ 14:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ORG -- "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary."-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't have to meet the topic-specific standard of WP:ORG. WP:GNG is adequate, as per ORG. ╟─TreasuryTag► Lord Speaker ─╢ 15:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the search is frustrated by pay walls, I find sufficient evidence that the building is an architecturally significant work by an important St. Louis architect, William Bernoudy.  For example, it appears to be the first building mentioned in his obituary., and (according to the excerpt at GNews) the author of a book about Bernoudy (which, unfortunately, does not seem to have excerpts available on-line) has lectured on the importance of the temple to his work.  Another St. Louis Post-Dispatch article refers to it as a "St. Louis classic". --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's an interesting line of attack. "Two institutional projects that do survive are the barrel-vaulted gymnasium of Thomas Jefferson School in Kirkwood and, perhaps the best known and most admired of the firm's institutional work, Temple Emanuel. The Reform Jewish temple on Conway Road in Creve Coeur has a dramatic, steeply pitched and faceted copper roof, now a soft green. Its steep pitch makes it reminiscent of the tents used by the ancient Jews for their places of worship. Its six sides form a Star of David. " -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given the large number of GNews and GBooks hits to sort through on a basic search for the name and city, the nominator's boilerplate dismissal lacks credibility. Moreover, the subject appears to have an entry in a third-party specialty encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia of Jewish institutions: United States & Canada, which to me is sufficient to tilt the balance absent a refuting analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient RS coverage to indicate notability, as is indicated above.  I'm going to assume that nom, as he has indicated was the case elsewhere, did not do a wp:before search here.  I'm encouraged by his indication at another AfD that he hears the community reaction to that, and will do so in the future.  That, of course, will save the community a good deal of time that would otherwise be spent indicating lack of consensus for AfDs such as this one.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep In its current state, the article clearly demonstrates notability. Once again, Epeefleche has rescued a synagogue article from the chopping block. Congratulations, Epeefleche. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Had the nominator made a quick check of the first 10 entries on Google search, he would have found the first of many references for this notable congregation. The page's current reference section is more than adequately sourced. Yoninah (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the onus is not upon the nominator but rather upon the article's content contributors. While it is a good practice to investigate before nomination, it is by no means required. Basket of Puppies  10:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And your reason for not carrying out the "good practice" in this case was? <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ─╢ 10:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not required. See WP:BURDEN. Basket of Puppies  10:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you think it's not required. I know that because you wrote it in the comment to which I was replying. My question was that, since you admit it is "good practice" (your words) to perform a check before nomination, why you chose not to follow that good practice. <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► consulate ─╢ 11:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See above. It's not required before nomination. Basket of Puppies  11:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You and I both know that you aren't answering the question. Let's say we both agree that you don't have to perform a check. I'm now asking why you didn't choose to, of your own free choice. <font color="#C4112F">╟─TreasuryTag► secretariat ─╢ 11:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's not required. Basket of Puppies  11:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So the  only  reason you chose not to do something which you admit is "good practice" and a good idea is that it wasn't explicitly required? Sounds pretty POINTy to me. <font color="#C4112F">╟─TreasuryTag► Osbert ─╢ 11:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing me of violating WP:POINT? Basket of Puppies  11:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. <font color="#00ACF4">╟─TreasuryTag► ballotbox ─╢ 11:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Back to ANI we go. Sigh. Basket of Puppies  11:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * delete As observed by SarekofVulkan there do not appear to be any sources that establish notability. As I said at ANI one could find similar such reports for locale village halls. Upon reflection one can also find similar sources for Working men's clubs, and Little league teams. John lilburne (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So you think this article should be deleted, because a similar level of sourcing also exists for some other institutions which you think are inherently non-notable? <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► constabulary ─╢ 11:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I say the sourcing to establish notability is slight. Take for example "the exhibition of black and white photographs" - The exhibition is notable the building that housed them for 10 days not so, is this a recognised exhibition centre of photography? The building itself is an example of the work by William Bernoudy who is probably notable (at least locally), but there is nothing in this article that establishes this as a notable example of his work. In both cases notability is being inherited. The rest is a sequence of press releases, and one wouldn't establish notability simply because from time to time a community was mentioned in the press especially when each reporting was about some different event. One would want to establish why this group is notable in its own right. John lilburne (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge the architecture-related parts of the article to William Bernoudy, delete the rest. The architecture of the synagogue building seems to be notable, so it could be effectively covered in the article about architect Bernoudy. Otherwise, I don't see evidence of notability for the synagogue. I've looked at all of the "sources" cited in the article and I find that many of them are merely directories of synagogues -- listing in a lot of directories does not make this synagogue notable. Other than the architecture, the only possible claims of notability here are (1) the sourced indication that the temple conducts most of its services on Sunday morning, which turns out not to be true -- the website shows services on Friday evenings and religious education programs on Sundays, and (2) providing a venue for an interesting photo exhibition (that's more about the photography than it is about the synagogue -- notability is not inherited). Most of the article is trivia that should be expunged. --Orlady (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A question. What is this synagogue notable for? It is a place of worship, and as such notable to its congregation. It may even be notable to the Creator. For the rest of us, a claim of 'notability' tends to imply the existence of a reason for such. So: "This synagogue is notable because..."? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A response. It's notable because it meets the GNG. "Notable for" might be a useful concept for pigeonholing, but it's meaningful mostly for applying SNG's, not the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh?. That isn't 'a response', it is an evasion. How does it meet the GNG? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Earlier on this page, Hullabaloo referred to this snippet, which purport to be an encyclopedia entry, but looks to me more like a directory listing. Inclusion in that kind of volume doesn't meet the GNG, IMO. --Orlady (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree w/Hullaballoo. The only meaning of notability that is relevant here is the wp usage.  That refers to "being noticed" by RSs.  As the guideline puts it, "noticed by people outside of the organization".  Not to being famous, as in the typical dictionary defn of the term.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Qui? - This fails "Significant coverage". There are a handful of one off events, none of which are particularly significant in themselves, and even when combined provide no significant coverage of this institution. John lilburne (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Another question. If this was a pub, rather than a place of worship, and had similar coverage, would it be 'notable'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You could ask the same question as to a high school. Or a college.  Or a country.  But I think we are moving far afield, and discussions like this are better for the talk page, or pump, or the afd talk page.  Otherwise, they could easily lead to red herring conversations that are off-topic.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I feared ... see below. Looks to me like a red herring conversation, that threatens to shanghai this AfD, which per wp:notaforum may perhaps not be the right place for this highly general discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Like it or not, circumstances mean that this isn't just another AfD, and it is getting closer scrutiny than many. This may or may not be the best way to deal with issues, but if a 'highly general discussion' leads to specific questions being asked which are of direct relevance to the subject, it would seem only sensible to at least attempt to answer them - so does this article meet WP:CORPDEPTH guidelines, or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, question three: Can anyone give an example of a non-notable place of worship - with an indication of why it fails to be notable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * On a more general point, we have very specific policy guidelines regarding organisations - WP:CORPDEPTH:


 * A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.


 * Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.


 * Depth of coverage


 * The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.


 * Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage...


 * Audience
 * The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.

Since a synagogue clearly falls within the remit of WP:ORG, this is the accepted notability standard to apply. Can anyone provide evidence that this article meets the standard? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm... you do know that it only needs to meet one of WP:ORG and WP:GNG, don't you? They're interchangeable. <font color="#00ACF4">╟─TreasuryTag► Counsellor of State ─╢ 08:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about that? This would seem to render much of WP:ORG entirely redundant. In any case, I've yet to see a clear explanation of what it is about this synagogue that makes it pass WP:GNG. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's a slightly counter-intuitive situation, but the official line is that so long as an article meets a notability standard (either a topic-specific one such as WP:ORG or the GNG) then that is adequate. See, for instance, WP:ORG: "Organizations are considered notable if they meet one of the following sourcing requirements [...] the general notability guideline." <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► consulate ─╢ 13:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It still fails WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage of this organisation. What we have is a series of press release, and directory entries. Notice that X is holding meeting does not make X notable. If it did we could lump together notices of births, Bar Mitzvah, Bat Mitzvah, and weddings to make anyone with 3 kids notable. John lilburne (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a mis-characterization of the refs, as anyone going through them can see.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WHAT!!!!!!!!????????????? The first reference (used 6 times is a contact page), reference two is a directory entry, 4 & 5 are about past activities that do not appertain to the present, ref 6 is another directory entry, 7 is a mirror of 6, 8 another directory entry, ref 9 used 5 times is self published:
 * ref 10 (used 3 times) is press release on a 50 year celebration. That leaves us with ref 3 which is about the architect of the build. John lilburne (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite certain how you came to characterize, just for example, the following as consisting of "press releases and directory entries": Kassander, Jill (September 19, 2006). "Temple celebrates half century mark". St. Louis Jewish Light; Matthew Hathaway (March 6, 2008). "Two Reform Jewish congregations may merge". St. Louis Post-Dispatch; Sherwin, Mike (March 12, 2008). "Temples to consider merger". St. Louis Jewish Light; Kassander, Jill (May 1, 2008). "Temple Emanuel discusses options for future". St. Louis Jewish Light; Kassander, Jill (February 11, 2009). "Temple Emanuel looks to its future". St. Louis Jewish Light; Kassander, Jill (May 7, 2008). "Vote favors stand alone option at T.E.". St. Louis Jewish Light; "Temple Emanuel photography exhibit highlights Albania, living with "besa" or "word of honor"". St. Louis Public Radio; Baugher, David (October 13, 2010). "Photo exhibit focuses on Muslims who saved Jews during WWII". St. Louis Jewish Light; Kassander, Jill (April 29, 2008). "Rabbi Taub opts not to renew contract". St. Louis Jewish Light; "Temple selects Lowenhaupt as board president". St. Louis Today; "Retelling of Temple Emanuel Story Starts with Bernoudy-Mutrux-Bauer". St. Louis Post-Dispatch; "Temple Emanuel looks to its future," Jill Kassander, St Louis Jewish Light, February 11, 2009.  And that's without even touching the other refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... It seems that Epeefleche has significantly revised the article since some of us reviewed it for this AfD discussion. (Almost none of those references were there yesterday, when I !voted.) I, for one, find it helpful when participants in these discussions point out the major changes they have made. I haven't yet studied the changes. --Orlady (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... It seems that Epeefleche has significantly revised the article since some of us reviewed it for this AfD discussion. (Almost none of those references were there yesterday, when I !voted.) I, for one, find it helpful when participants in these discussions point out the major changes they have made. I haven't yet studied the changes. --Orlady (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

These are mostly routine press releases, and local WP:NEWS stories. Each year the local round table committee organizes a firework party which gets a lot of local press coverage each year, they also do other things that generate local news stories, these in the last month it doesn't make them encyclopaedic. If a group celebrating 50 years is encyclopaedic then so is a 50th wedding anniversary. John lilburne (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In my experience when an article is at AfD, it is helpful to watch the article if you are involved in the AfD discussion, as it is normal course for editors to work on the article during that time. As to John's (again) calling these "press releases", perhaps he has a different understanding of the term than some of us have.  As far as them being local -- of course, houses of worship, being local, will naturally attract mostly "local" coverage.  When the coverage is as significant as here, especially -- with many of these articles focusing primarily on the house of worship -- we have the indicia of notability that we are seeking under wp guidelines.  John's "example" of a fireworks display is of course strikingly different that the coverage I point to above, as anyone reviewing those articles can plainly see.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * TT is completely correct -- they are clearly either/or requirements.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * comment on Epeefleche recent expansion of references *sigh* A few miles from where I live is a row of cottages designed by Edwin Lutyens but one wouldn't write an article on 32 Main Street no matter how many references one could find for the fact that Lutens was the Architect. Similarly even if there were a 100 references to the Mike Waterson and Peter Bellamy singing in Bacca Pipes folk club in the 1980s that does not make the Globe pub in Keighley notable. John lilburne (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Notability for wp purposes has a distinctly different meaning than the dictionary definition.  It refers to being "noticed", as reflected by multiple (usually) refs.  As the guideline puts it, "noticed by people outside of the organization".  Not the dictionary definition, which refers to a degree of fame.  You seem to -- understandably, for a relatively new editor -- taken the term notable at its dictionary meaning.  That's not correct, in the usage.  Otherwise, we would not (as we do) consider all colleges and (nearly?) all high schools notable -- they would have to instead indicate that a cure for cancer or the like had been arrived at there; and we do not require that houses of worship be ones at which Moses descended with the tablets.  We follow the wp notability guidelines, which focus on coverage, and on "being noticed". --Epeefleche (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is handily established, satisfying requirements of WP:ORG and WP:GNG by multiple Reliable sources of non-trivial nature. A little silly all this comparison to entities that are far afield from the topic of this discussion. We are discussing a synagogue, which is a Jewish house of worship. It would be OK if some of the comparisons shed light on this topic, but I don't see the farfetched comparisons as  illuminating. Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Is anyone actually going to answer my question?  What it is about this synagogue that makes it pass WP:GNG? Simply stating that 'it passes' isn't sufficient. If it is notable, it is notable for a reason. What is it that has been found in 'reliable sources' that specifically makes it notable? We have sources that show that it exists, that it functions as a synagogue etc, but unless it is being asserted that all synagogues are notable, this is insufficient. If someone wishes to propose that by policy places of worship be automatically considered notable, then fine, we can have that debate elsewhere, but until this policy is established, notability for this synagogue will be determined on the basis that it is notable for something beyond mere existance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody's answered your question, but a few people have explained why it's irrelevant, and I'm afraid I'm going to join their number. Our notability policy is not predicated on things being notable "for a reason." It is predicated on whether or not "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." By adding an additional criterion that the topic must have some abstract 'reason for fame', you are setting the standard higher than it should be. (This comment put it more eloquently than I did, though.) <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► condominium ─╢ 15:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ... From which it follows that if I can find sufficient articles mentioning the pub round the corner from here (I'm sure I could), that would be 'notable' too. That should be good for a free pint or two. I'd better start Googling... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to think you're using a reductio ad absurdum but you're actually not, and you are absolutely right. If your local pub "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" then it indeed passes the GNG and is indeed 'deserving' of an article. <font color="#C4112F">╟─TreasuryTag► CANUKUS ─╢ 15:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Reductio ad adsurdum it is! Here's an article about three kids in Missouri who opened a lemonade stand. It's been carried all over the United States:, , , , , , , , , , , and many more newspapers. I believe that the theories of notability being espoused by some "keep" voters on this page would also make this lemonade stand notable. --Orlady (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Orlady—except that we are not talking about lemonade stands and pubs. An apt comparison might be to a Christian Church or a Muslim Mosque. I think some of the more farfetched comparisons are less than completely constructive. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. WP:ORG should apply to lemonade stands and religious organizations alike, but it has been argued on this page (see TreasuryTag, above) that GNG trumps WP:ORG, and that any topic that "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (with "significant coverage" apparently being defined as any article of more than trivial length) is notable. By that reasoning, the lemonade stand would be notable (and if Wikipedians decide that's what notability means, Katy bar the door -- there's an onslaught of cruft a'coming!). --Orlady (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither guideline trumps the other. As with all matter-specific wp notability guidelines, they are "either/or" methods of demonstrating notability.  Once can demonstrate wp notability either by applying GNG, or by applying a matter-specific guideline.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump—you say, "…notability for this synagogue will be determined on the basis that it is notable for something beyond mere existence."


 * Incorrect. You are apparently of the opinion that every question that you can raise has to be answered. This is not the case. Wikipedia editors do not have to answer your questions as to why something matters. Reliable sources determine notability, and reliable sources serve to an extent to indicate relevance. This means that if reliable sources have in multiple instances, in a non-trivial way, seen fit to mention Temple Emanuel, or a given aspect of Temple Emanuel, we at Wikipedia have been given a tentative green-light to include an article on Temple Emanuel in our encyclopedia. Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

And what exactly are the 'non trivial' sources? What 'non trivial' details do they give, beyond telling us that the synagogue exists? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Bus stop. Notability is established with the additional refs added by Epeefleche.  The notability guideline should be interpreted with latitude when it comes to synagogues, churches, and other places of worship.  (And if your corner pub is mentioned in reliable sources, then please feel free to write an article about it).  --  Kenatipo    speak! 17:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "The notability guideline should be interpreted with latitude when it comes to synagogues, churches, and other places of worship". Not without an explicit policy that states this, it shouldn't. There is no such policy. If you want to propose this policy change. then do so - but you can't do it here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Significant coverage" is where I see the possibility for latitude. Does it mean 10 front-page articles in the New York Times are required, or a scholarly tome by an established historian?  Or, can it just mean a few mentions in the local newspaper?  I answer, obviously, the latter.  --  Kenatipo    speak! 21:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course not. But we shouldn't be garnering notability on a handful of one event reports over a 50 year period. Particularly when those reports are from the equivalent of a Trade Magazine. John lilburne (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

John -- Your comments throughout this AfD seem to be marked by a measure of hyperbole. This article reflects amply what wp:gng calls for. If you don't like the wp notability rules, its possible that a better place to address your concerns might be on the talkpage of the rule itself. Because as you can plainly see, your preferred view as to what the rule should be is not the consensus view at this AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * John lilburne—the subject of the article is a synagogue, which is a house of worship. There is no need for any sources beyond those that are already in the article.


 * This is non-trivial coverage for a synagogue. The rabbi of Temple Emanuel at that source speaks about how he envisions that institution functioning in relation to the surrounding community that it serves. It is a synagogue. It functions well when it functions uneventfully.


 * This web site describes itself as being: "Developed by the Missouri Historical Society in collaboration with members of the communities featured here, this web site explores significant locations in a particular group’s history and examines the cultural landscapes that together make up this place we call St. Louis."


 * The above website explains the origins of Temple Emanuel. It highlights major developmental points of that institution up to the present. That is non-trivial coverage for a synagogue. This is a house of worship. It is functioning as it should when sources merely acknowledge its existence. A synagogue is not likely to "be garnering notability" for anything other than the above if it is functioning smoothly. It is a house of worship. It is supposed to function uneventfully. Bus stop (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, once again you are suggesting that an exception needs to be made for places of worship, and that mere 'existence' should be a sufficient criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. This isn't current policy. I have already pointed out to you that if you wish to propose a policy change, you should do so in the appropriate place - but for now, we must assume that the closing admin will note that your 'keep' !vote isn't based on existing policy, and discount it accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

...and by discounting it, that's seriously going to affect the clear balance of consensus here, right? <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► District Collector ─╢ 14:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—I provided examples above of 2 sources here and here. They are necessary to support the existence of the article. Without reliable sources the article should be deleted. Do you find the above 2 sources deficient in any way as concerns supplying the necessary justification for the existence of the Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri) article? Address the sources. Do you find fault with the above 2 sources? If so, in what way do you find the above 2 sources lacking? Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I was responding to your attempt to reinvent policy on the fly. If you are suggesting that the article conforms to existing notability requirements, then why are you arguing for a change in policy? (and in response to your question - the articles you link confirm that the synagogue exists - but nobody is disputing that. What we are debating is the concept of notability) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Another example—consider this PDF, containing the following:


 * "There was one congregation, however, which instituted Sunday services as late as 1958." Temple Emanuel in St. Louis included a provision for Sunday services. These services are still held today, but an occasional Friday-evening service has been added."


 * The above is a reference to Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri), it is non-trivial, it is found in a scholarly article about "The Sunday-Sabbath Movement in American Reform Judaism". Bus stop (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If the article were about 'Sunday worship in Reform Judaism', it wouldn't be trivial. Here, it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—you say "If the article were about 'Sunday worship in Reform Judaism', it wouldn't be trivial."


 * I don't think this is true. The reason a reliable source such as this scholarly article sees fit to mention the Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri) is because of its stature among similar houses of worship. We depend on reliable sources to provide us with good quality information. We can safely assume, based on its mention in this reliable source, that the Temple Emanuel is a noteworthy institution. Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the 'reliable source' say that Temple Emanuel is a noteworthy institution? No. Does it say anything about the 'stature' of the Temple? No. Please do not misrepresent the content of sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy, I'm getting a feeling that you're so busy writing long posts, that you may have missed what others have said. The criterion is not (apologies to others for repeating this) that the sources "say that x is noteworthy".  The criterion is that x be "noticed" in the sources.  That is what makes x notable, for wp purposes.  In any event, I hope that you will take to heart the rather dramatic difference between your understanding and the consensus understanding here, and allow that to inform your understanding in the future -- inasmuch as consensus is a key foundation of the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what constitutes 'noteworthiness' for the purposes of Wikipedia (and opinions of this clearly differ), I'm fairly sure that consensus is against the misrepresentation of source content - I am expecting Bus stop to respond, either by redacting his claims regarding the source he cites, or explaining how he arrived at the conclusion he did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—sources rarely say explicitly that something is "notable". Similarly, sources rarely say an entity has "stature". Examples are given by good quality sources because they are good examples. Good quality sources have criteria that are similar to our own. They too look for notability; they too look for stature. Why would you assume that a good quality, scholarly source, would be providing as an example an institution that is not notable, or that is of little stature? The name of their article is "The Sunday-Sabbath Movement in American Reform Judaism: Strategy or Evolution?" Bus stop (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The only mention of Temple Emanuel in the article seems to be in this paragraph:
 * There was one congregation, however, which instituted Sunday services as late as 1958. Temple Emanuel in St. Louis included a provision for Sunday services. These services are still held today, but an occasional Friday-evening service has been added. In addition to Emanuel in St. Louis, Chicago Sinai has remained faithful to the cause, holding services on Sunday morning instead of Saturday morning. Others have services both on Saturday and Sunday. The Sunday liturgy, however, does not differ from any other daily morning service held in Reform congregations throughout the country.
 * So where does it state that the Temple is 'notable'? Where does it say anything about its 'stature'. It doesn't. You misrepresented the source. (p. 84) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The article does not use any adjectives for T.E., but in the context it could be said that it was mentioned almost as a footnote, since it added its Sunday service some 30 years after the Sunday-Sabbath Movement died out. Please also note that the article is about 30 years old, so its contents should not be discussed as if they were current information. --Orlady (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Orlady—I don't think it matters that "it added its Sunday service some 30 years after the Sunday-Sabbath Movement died out." Why would that fact detract from the notice that a good quality scholarly source pays to the subject of this article? It is the same institution. It hasn't changed name. It has a history. It was a latecomer to the practice of holding Sabbath services on Sunday. The point is that a reliable source is taking notice of this institution. Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you refer to "noteworthiness for the purposes of Wikipedia".


 * I think noteworthiness for the purposes of Wikipedia is not all that different from noteworthiness for the purposes of most good quality reliable sources.


 * You say here: "So where does it state that the Temple is 'notable'? Where does it say anything about its 'stature'. It doesn't. You misrepresented the source."


 * Let me try to explain this again. The value in a good quality source is that when they provide an example of something, they are not going to provide a non-representative example. That implies stature. What good would it do them to argue a point based on the examples of insignificant institutions? Significance implies notability.


 * A good quality source has criteria that do not differ all that much from Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Utter garbage. You made a false claim about source content, and are trying to wriggle out of it by telling us what you think the author of the article would mean by the words 'notable' and 'stature' if he/she had used them. Either redact your misrepresentations, or I will take this up elsewhere. I've had just about enough of your nit-picking trivia, endless wilful misinterpretation of policy, and general attitude that Wikipedia is only here for the purposes of boosting your ethnoreligious obsessions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say "Bus stop, redact your false claim, or this goes to AN/I".


 * Redact what "false claim"? Please provide a link to my supposed "false calm". Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Diff: . AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC) The source cited does not state that the Temple is either 'noteworthy', nor that it has 'stature' - that is your spin, nothing more, nothing less. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now raised Bus stop's misrepresentation of sources at AN/I: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per "Notability of a lemonade stand." The internet hols vast amounts of infomation about any odd thing. We need to clarify what counts as "notable" for synaggoue. I am also against each and every school having a page just becasue it exists and has been reported in some local online papers. Chesdovi (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Chesdovi—you say, "We need to clarify what counts as "notable" for synagogue." Indeed we do. That is a priority. I can tell you right off the bat that virtually all synagogues should be considered notable. These are estimable cultural entities. I am using the word cultural in the broadest possible sense. It defies logic that Wikipedia could deem an expression of human culture on par with a house of worship non-notable once reliable sources have established its existence. We have articles on junk art. We have articles on works of graffiti. (Be sure to view these cultural treasures at full resolution.) Please don't present me with the untenable argument that many synagogues can be considered non-notable. This is equally applicable to Christian Churches and Muslim Mosques. Bus stop (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then propose this change of policy in the appropriate place. Until such changes are made, this AfD will have to restrict debate to current policy, not what you "tell" us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—there is no need for a "change of policy". Sources exist in abundance. Those sources establish that this is a viable institution of some stature. Many particulars of this institution as an individualistic entity are highlighted by sources. That is all that should be required of a house of worship. I think already-existing policy would be in support of such an approach to this article. Bus stop (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about synagogues, but I've never seen one in the shape of the Magen David. That alone might make it notable.  --  Kenatipo    speak! 16:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Then find a source that says this makes it notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Kenatipo—I think many things are of interest about this Jewish religious institution. These are factors—some of them anyway—that tend to lend to its notability, and these factors are confirmed by sources. For instance we find that the "leader of song or hazan" is not Jewish. I think that is unusual. In this source we find: "Another unique feature is Malachi, the African-American who is non-Jewish and is our leader of song or hazan." I don't think this alone establishes notability but I think it would tend to contribute to notability. Bus stop (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Jayjg says it is forbidden in Jewish law, whilst others say its common. Which do you want to go with? John lilburne (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * John lilburne—I think this is a "progressive" Temple, even by the standards of the liberal end of the spectrum of Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Must be Jewish for the service to be valid says User:Flourdustedhazzn. Surely the article should be making more of the fact, if true, that the synagogue has been conducting invalid services, not burying it right at the end. John lilburne (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * John lilburne—we don't know that "the synagogue has been conducting invalid services". We only know that one editor asserts this. Bus stop (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Remember also that Jayjg said it was forbidden in law. If either of those opinions are true, then you have notability. So why not confirm that either of the two editors are right? Should be simple for one with your knowledge. Is it common, or contrary to law? John lilburne (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * John lilburne—you say "Should be simple for one with your knowledge."


 * I only adhere to reliable sources. I don't rely on my own knowledge. That is original research. Bus stop (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what Jewish law says, that statement about "Malachi" gives me the creeps. (Am I the only one who feels this way?) When "Malachi" is identified only by that one name (presumably his first name) and is described as "African-American" and "non-Jewish," I get a disturbing image of a black "boy" putting on a minstrel show for white folks. If the rabbi can't be bothered to describe this man with his full name, the encyclopedia should not repeat the indignity. --Orlady (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Orlady—I'm in partial agreement, though we don't know all the facts. Perhaps it is the hazan's choice to go by one name. I think the name "Malachi" and the identity of "African American" can be left out. The article could simply state that the hazan is not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that the 'reliable source' (yeah, right...) can't even get his name right (two different spellings in two sentences), I'd be inclined to agree... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—my guess (just a guess) is that Malachi relates to Melech which means king in Hebrew. Not exactly an undignified name. Bus stop (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, Bus "I only adhere to reliable sources. I don't rely on my own knowledge" stop, I'll take your word for it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—please don't alter other editor's posts as you do here. Your response is time stamped 2 minutes after my post, I did not see your post, you did not respond to my post, and my addition to my post is completely irrelevant to your subsequent post. Also note: WP:REDACT: "Please do not apply any such changes to other editors' comments without permission." Bus stop (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agreed with your original statement: that "the article could simply state that the hazan is not Jewish". You edited your comment by adding "this would more appropriately be discussed on the article's Talk page". This is a clear change of meaning, in breach of WP:REDACT guidelines. Either take this to AN/I, or apologise for distorting my response. I see no reason to discuss such meaningless trivia anywhere, regardless of how much you'd like to carry on with your nitpicking, POV-pushing bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Considering how tenuous the basis for this factoid is, I don't think it belongs in the article in any form. (But, then again, it's no less tenuous than the basis for most of the rest of the article.) --Orlady (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Orlady—I think the name of the individual is of secondary importance. Also I think his being African-American is of secondary importance. Of greater importance might be that he is not Jewish. But I think this this would more appropriately be discussed on the article's Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

His name is Malachi Owens, per his biography at the Temple's website. His career and unusual role are discussed in several independent sources. According to these sources, he's been with the Temple since 1977, and also has been a Baptist minister since 1998. He's also an electrical engineer and artist. Rather a fascinating story, and certainly sufficiently sourceable to include in the Temple Emanuel article. "Dual life: Baptist minister also serves as Jewish cantor", KSDK, October 13, 2009. "The Electrical Engineer That Could", Washington University in St. Louis Magazine, Fall 2005. -Arxiloxos (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Arxiloxos, for finding a source and fixing that item in the article. --Orlady (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo, in answer to a question as to whether the shape of the Temple makes it 'notable', it took me 5 minutes to find another one in the shape of a Star of David - on Wikipedia: How common this shape is, I've no idea, but unless we can find sources that state that the Temple is notable because of this, it is irrelevant to an AfD debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sufficient sourcing for notability. The basic deletionist line  of argument here and more generally is that the GNG is the standard, except when the GNG leads to a result that is not liked, in which case ignore it.  I've always thought that the GNG puts us at the mercy of what the Googles happen to make accessible, for that's the usual depth of Wikipedian research,  As I asked very early in my first year here, why do we have such a rule unless we intend to use it?   DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability indicated by (among other things) large number of WP:RS that discuss it. Kudos to Yoninah and Epeefleche for improving the article. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It looks like the article now clearly has enough non-trivial reliable sources to prove its notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, the present form of the article demonstrates that many reliable sources have covered its subject. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * comment If so then why has one of the adders of these extra references spent a large part of the last 24 hours on my talk page, trying to convince me of their worth, and latterly making comments that perhaps I'm someone else? John lilburne (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he, recognizing that you were were one of the very few delete !votes in the face of 13 keep !votes here, was trying to explain to you the rationale of the overwhelming consensus of editors on this page, and to encourage you to be more accurate in your representations at AfD. Had he been successful, that would have been a service to the community. Certainly he was not doing it to ensure the result here, which is obvious from the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what is "obvious from the above" is that if sufficient partisan editors pile into an AfD, they can make anything 'notable'. "Oh look, I've got 16,000 Google hit for my pub!" It must be notable - it serves beer, and the Ancient Egyptians invented that. And the local cycling club meets there. Oh yes, its on a Bus Route too, and we know how notable they are... Welcome to Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia that anybody can fill with trivia if they can find it on Google. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do videos count? I can source numerous local press reports, city council minutes, it was one of the prtestige projects for the Job Creation Schemes of the mid 1980s, there were references on BBC radio and TV, plus a few mentions in the national press. But this was in reality a playground and a duck pond. There are larger groups like this one that had major local council support. There are 120 similar groups and a 1000 odd community garden projects too. All of which will have extensive local coverage. I doubt that many are really encyclopaedic but they'd all soar over the hurdle presented here. John lilburne (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That does not explain coming on to the talk page and making accusations of flip-flopping. Then asking whether I might be someone else, then re-asking, then re-asking for a third time. Someone that does that isn't explaining anything. John lilburne (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy and John -- I understand that the two of you share a desire to beat this dead horse of a conversation to death, and both of you do seem to have a penchant for repeating yourselves here (which I regret to say I have been guilty of doing as well, in response), and both of you think this synagogue is the same as your pub, and both of you dislike the overwhelming consensus at this AfD, and both of you dislike what GNG says. I'll bow out, though, and let this be closed, as I don't see how anything I can add--or that the 13 of us have said--will help address these issues for the two of you.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody said that a synagogue is like a pub. What has been said is that the use and type of references in this article to establish notability, can equally be found for establishing notability for a pub. As I indicated with the community project I can find plenty of similar sources to make that org encyclopaedic too. And if I chose to put my mind to I could dredge up similar stuff for the drinking club behind it too. John lilburne (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - and no, I haven't !voted before - I came here to see how 'notability' was defined with regards to synagogues, and now I know, I can't possibly support it. Apart from anything else, it trivialises people's religious beliefs and heritage to assert that their place of worship is 'notable' because it got talked about in the local papers or whatever. Still, publicity for the cause is what matters... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The claims of notability in the article are backed by dozens of the reliable and verifiable sources needed to support the claim. Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  05:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Andy has been blocked for edit-warring and personal attacks here, and Bus has been blocked for edit-warring, so if anyone is awaiting a response please understand that it will have to wait until their unblock.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Observation: The current article is cobbled together mainly from passing mentions in small, local publications as well as few other sources, like publications on architecture in the St. Louis area.  According to Wikipedia's current policies, however, this article probably does meet the threshold of notability if defined as information being available in reliable sources.  What this says, I think, is that anyone who is good at datamining from the deep web (finding information that doesn't show up on Google searches) or has the time and resources to access obscure community news publications, trade journals, or niche-market books, could probably write an article on just about anything, including the proverbial lemonade stand.  If this is what Wikipedia wants to be, then that's fine.  The question is, is this what Wikipedia wants to be?  To the closing admin, you get to decide in this case. Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I've followed this debate in recent days and have seen how this article has grown. I am saddened by the heated words that have been exchanged here and respect the arguments and the contributions to this encyclopedia of those who advocate deleting this article.  However, I have concluded that the article as it now stands deserves to stay, because of the references provided.  One lesson that I draw from this and similar debates is that rapid-fire mass deletion nominations too often cause an excessive amount of controversy.  A slower and more judicious approach is a wiser approach, supplemented by the recommendations of WP:BEFORE.  That's my opinion, for what it's worth.  Peace to all. Cullen328 (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Virtually none of the material on the synagogue is notable in itself - what we are left with is a group which has gotten enough mentions of a non-notable institution to become "notable" by the Wikipedia definition.  In fact, almost everything other than its architecture appears to be no more notable than hundreds of other synagogues ("300 families" is not a notable attribute. Really.)    Most of the article is organizational puff of the first order.  Keep the architecture stuff, remove all the puff. Including size of a non-notable congregation,  and the fact that it even holds religious services.  Find me a church which would not hold services <g>.  No notable rabbis.  Nothing much notable, in fact, at all.   Collect (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Comment as With Cla68 and Collect, I see an article that is a compilation of low grade material supported by independent sources. I've been following arguments and it seems borderline notable. Perhaps better guidance on notability will come out of this. It would be good if recent effort expended on this and similar articles as a result of the attention brought by this AfD continues and the article(s) develop further. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. And big fat fishy slaps to any editors responsible for raising the heat here. And I agree wholeheartedly with Cullen328. --Dweller (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable for being a fairly large (300 families) for a Reform Jewish temple, and because of its architectural significance (both in design/shape and notability of the architect - and yes, this is another exception to WP:NOTINHERITED). Those are the two most used reasons for claiming notability of houses of worship.  I added "The Temple is notable not only for its size, but for its unique modern architecture." to the lead. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete If we took all synagogues and listed them in order of importance or notability I think this one would be slightly above average but not in the top 10% and certainly not the top 1%. Keeping an article with this level of referencing and notability is close to saying that all synagogues should have articles. And hence, of course all churches, mosques etc. I'm not saying that is an indefensible position, it isn't much more extreme than saying that all High Schools are notable. But my reading is that the wikipedia consensus is that the bar isn't quite that low. Dingo1729 (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The question isn't whether all synagogues would have articles or high schools or mosques or whatever else you're speculating about. The question is whether or not this article meets the GNG or not, and you need to address that in your response. <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► contemnor ─╢ 18:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to be aggressive, there's far too much of that on this page already. My opinion is that the subject of the article does not meet the GNG, but the standard cannot be anything but subjective and different people have different thresholds. It may help to think about what threshold to use on a particular subject by thinking how it would apply to other subjects. Dingo1729 (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment clearly wasn't aggressive. It was simply intended to point out that your line of reasoning (that we might potentially end up with lots more articles on similar subjects, or on different subjects) was not a relevant one, since the sole standard to be applied here is GNG. <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► contemnor ─╢ 21:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Dingo. Welcome.  Two questions.  One is why, given that GNG instructs that an article is notable "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources", you think this does not meet the GNG standard.  Second is why, given your focus (which I find laudatory) on "what consensus is", your comment does not accord with the community consensus as reflected on this page.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think it comes down to how significant the coverage is. It's a subjective standard, and the majority of people here think it meets that standard. I think it's below but not way below, hence the "weak" delete. On consensus, I was thinking of the general view on what subjects should have articles rather than the consensus on this particular page. We try to have some consistency in our criteria for keeping articles and to do that we have to compare within subjects (such as all synagogues) and between subjects (such as mosques and high schools). I won't be upset if this articles is kept, but I just wanted to add my opinion. Regards, Dingo1729 (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep. This page is clearly notable and well sourced. Need I say more? Come on. Tinton5 (talk) 19:38, 29 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.