Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Sinai (Portsmouth, Virginia)


 * 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 no consensus. Though there was a small majority of keepers, I find the deleters arguments to be stronger. I have read each of the sources, and none of the independent sources address the subject directly and in detail. What we have are specific facts about, and aspects of the work of, the subject that are sourced. Putting these sources together has led many editors to judge that WP:GNG has been met. It could be argued that this is a form of synthesis. Though there is a school of thought that this is what the notability guidelines should say, it is not what they currently say, and this is not the place to change them. Having said that, it is not my role to substitute my judgement for that of the community nor to cast a supervote. Hence I regard 'no consensus' as a fair summary of the discussion. TerriersFan (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Temple Sinai (Portsmouth, Virginia)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable congregation. Basket of Puppies 08:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep because it has enough citations and it's only a WP:STUB. IZAK (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Stating "valid STUB" is not an accepted rationale for keeping an article. All articles must be notable. I strongly suggest that IZAK reviews the notability guidelines before further commenting on AfDs. Basket of Puppies  14:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as IZAK --Yoavd (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:PERNOM Basket of Puppies  04:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Izak et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:PERNOM Basket of Puppies  04:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Basket: We get the point. You made your point. You don't like these articles about these synagogues, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please stop passing "judgment" on multiple users in a row as this may well be a violation of WP:CITESPAM and WP:HARASS. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Previous reply to IZAK located here. Basket of Puppies  12:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This appears to be a run of the mill Synagogue that fails to have any specific notability per WP:NONPROFIT or WP:GNG. It makes no claims of notability in the article itself. I also 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) 19:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has sources and seems notable to me, especially for the Portsmouth, VA area. Tinton5 (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete As boring as it was in August 2010. Chesdovi (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling user:BasketofPuppies does not like synagogue pages on here, as I notice he marked five synagogue pages in a row, made by user Jayjg. Not to mention these articles are sourced and some even have photos; they could def be expanded, but I have a funny feeling about this user. Tinton5 (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please refrain from attacking other editors and instead focus on the content of the article during this discussion. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tinton, WP:AGF. Thank you. Basket of Puppies  17:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tinton, please clarify your claim "made by user Jayjg". None of them were created by Jayjg? Chesdovi (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes some of them were. In my opinion, you are attacking us Jewish editors, by nominating multiple articles for deletion that deal with synagogues, which are well sourced of that matter. Tinton5 (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the pages nominated have not been created by Jayjg. Chesdovi (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * you are attacking us Jewish editors Are you being serious? Basket of Puppies  18:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tinton, please don't personalize things. There's no evidence that Basket has intention to "attack" any editors of any group. Nominating a large number of articles in a single subject, while potentially disruptive, does not mean one somehow dislikes or wants to attack people in that group. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignore his comment Basket of Puppies. Tinton is a sensitive soul. He is fustrated, that's all. Chesdovi (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

To basket: Very serious. To Josh: You don't know the half of it. Out of nowhere, ( I won't mention any names), but some users have been marking several pages for deletion, even though these pages have been up for months and years. And to Cesdovi: User:Jayg did in fact create these pages, not this one however. Just look at the bottom User talk:Jayjg. Notice the five synagogues he created and click on those, then check the page's edit history. Scroll down and the first name you will see is User:Jayjg, from 2008. Freakin 2008. And all of a sudden in 2011 there are deletion notices on several synagogues, which will soon evaporate as soon as other willing editors, like myself will help save these pages, by adding sources and establishing notability, which we have been doing all along. By the way, I was frustrated, not anymore, since we will be able to keep a majority of these pages on here. Tinton5 (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. I thought you were referring to the 5 currently at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. As far as I can recall, many of Jayjg's first such articles were also nominated for deletion. He spent much, much hard work and laborious hours to save them all! Chesdovi (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Tinton, this is an extremely serious accusation. You have clearly stated that I am editing against a class or group of people, in this case Jews. I will open a discussion at the appropriate administrative noticeboard in order to obtain administrative intervention. Basket of Puppies  18:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Do what you gotta do. Also, your nominations for deletion have been declined by JoshuaZ for User:Jayjg's five pages. That's proof right there. You had no reason to hinder the editing process. Tinton5 (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I only removed one of the speedy deletion tags. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:NOTDIR/WP:ORG per lack of specific notability. The only cites appear to be that it exists and does exactly the same stuff that pretty much every other congregation does (belong to its parent body and interact with others in it, generic help-the-disadvantaged, etc.). The only claim of notability is via inheritance from participation in a notable multicongregation school program. That could be a viable article (schools are often notable, and often have independent coverage especially per claims of being "award-winning" and involved in community outreach). Alternately, I could maybe envision an article about the Jewish community in this town if there are multiple congregations and other organizations, public projects, etc. DMacks (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, don't see any particular assertion of notability in the article.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing in the article hints at notability -- no assertion of notability and no evidence thereof. Run-of-the-mill synagogue, AFAICT. --Orlady (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * NOTE the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. IZAK (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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) 23:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per IZAK...Modernist (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. The page has the basic references for notability in place and now needs some filling in from someone who has access to offline books. Yoninah (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per GNG.  As the majority of those !voting have already pointed out, there is sufficient RS coverage of this synagogue to reflect notability.  I am encouraged by nom's commitment, expressed elsewhere, to perform a wp:before search in the future, and thank him for indicating that he will do so.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. per WP:GNG and IZAK.  Also believe that the Notability guideline should be amended to automatically allow/include articles on any synagogue, church, mosque, Masonic temple or other place of worship in continuous operation for 50 years or more.  --  Kenatipo    speak! 20:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not seeing the sourcing that is supposed to qualify this under the GNG. I see that Kenatipo is asserting that it ought to pass WP:ORG for being more than 50 years old, but this one AfD discussion is not a good place to create a new guideline (and many of us would disagree with that proposal). Other than age, I don't see what it is about this synagogue that's supposed to make it notable. The article says Temple Sinai "emphasizes religious education and service to the community through social action," has formed a combined religious school program with another synagogue, "provides food for the hungry and shelter for the homeless," and engages in pulpit exchanges with yet another synagogue -- all of these are the kinds of routine, run-of-the-mill things that local religious organizations do, not a basis for notability. --Orlady (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That mis-states what Kenatipo said, I believe.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:05, 27 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.