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.
Delete: Wiki is not a catalog or directory of synagogues- NN. In addition, there seems to be Original Research in the process of arguing for keep.--
Jayrav (
talk)
21:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment. I've just read one source. The Forward article. That is certainly an RS. And the article is certainly more than a passing mention of the synagogue. None of the delete !votes seem to have considered it, as they all ignore it or claim that no such article exists or talk solely about directories. Did nom surface it and review it in his
wp:before search -- his nomination sounds like he was focusing only on what appeared in the article itself, though I could be mistaken. Did the editors read it in forming their !votes?
Epeefleche (
talk)
01:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Agreed @
Epeefleche: note that the key word "Congregation" because this article (and similar ones) are about congregations, not just the buildings in which they worship. Also, on WP there are general consensuses relating to deletion that aren't formally codified in the deletion guidelines; for example, there is apparently some long-standing consensus that every single high school on the planet is notable, regardless of age, size of student body, availability of reliable secondary sources, etc. Along those lines, there appears to be a general consensus that significant age does impart at least some degree of notability to a synagogue, despite what the
subjective importance essay says.
IZAK (
talk)
06:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Per GNG. I advise the nominator to in the future perform the required
wp:before search, if he did not do so here. There is no need for the RS sourcing to be reflected in the article (which it appears may have been nom's assertion in his nomination) -- it need merely exist.
Epeefleche (
talk)
19:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: despite
Yoninah's extensive sourcing and rewriting efforts, I think the article still does not the notability criteria. Users Alansohn, Lesser Cartographies and Epeefleche believe that the new sources are sufficient; I disagree, and will analyze the sources (numbered according to
this revision). 1: The article is about Goldberger, not really about his synagogue. 2 is the only significant source, in my opinion. 3 is a mere listing, as would be expected in a comprehensive report. (4, 5 and 9 are passing mentions, and are only intended to support details.) 6 is a blog. 7 seems promotional, and is not in-depth in any sense. 8 is commercial, a product listing. 10 and 11 are in-depth coverage of a trivial aspect of the congregation riding on a popular recent bit of news. How does this make the synagogue notable? הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad)
19:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't even have to read through the refs, but will jump right to the last two. Hasirpad dismisses articles about the congregation's acceptance of bitcoins as "trivial" and "popular". Well, notability is built on popularity -- and of course we have oodles of articles about "popular" topics that some editors (including me) think trivial ... but our POV is not relevant, if the RSs cover the topic "in depth" as Hasirpad admits these articles do. And in-depth coverage is what we look for in GNG. Editors have to park their personal views as to whether a topic is "trivial", and accept that RS coverage is the key.
Epeefleche (
talk)
20:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, I should have foreseen that my poorly-written sentence would be misunderstood. "Trivial" was meant in an objective sense; not "unencyclopedic" (I have no POV here that I am aware of) but "not of central importance to subject". (Thought experiment: imagine an opening sentence "... is a synagogue known for accepting Bitcoin".)
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad)
20:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)reply
As long as it is covered, with in-depth coverage (as here), we really shouldn't care that our personal point of view is that the coverage is trivial (in our subjective sense; it's not objective). As far as I'm concerned, if the coverage were because a synagogue were openly polyamorous, or kept real lions adjacent to the ark rather than sculptures of them, or were the oldest synagogue in the world, or were the smallest in the world, or had a chimp as the rabbi ... I would not substitute my judgment that the matter is "trivial" with the judgment of the RSs that it is worthy of full-length articles. And that is what we look for at AfD.
Epeefleche (
talk)
21:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Question and Suggestion It appears there are enough synagogues in Baltimore, present and past, that a combination article might be possible; I even think that would be more useful than separate ones. DGG (
talk )
20:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete, I concur with
User:הסרפד's analysis of the sources; we have one good one, followed by a bunch of trivial mentions and bitcoincruft that could not be considered "substantial", as required by the
WP:GNG, by any stretch of the imagination.
Lankiveil(
speak to me)00:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC).reply
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.
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.
Delete: Wiki is not a catalog or directory of synagogues- NN. In addition, there seems to be Original Research in the process of arguing for keep.--
Jayrav (
talk)
21:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment. I've just read one source. The Forward article. That is certainly an RS. And the article is certainly more than a passing mention of the synagogue. None of the delete !votes seem to have considered it, as they all ignore it or claim that no such article exists or talk solely about directories. Did nom surface it and review it in his
wp:before search -- his nomination sounds like he was focusing only on what appeared in the article itself, though I could be mistaken. Did the editors read it in forming their !votes?
Epeefleche (
talk)
01:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Agreed @
Epeefleche: note that the key word "Congregation" because this article (and similar ones) are about congregations, not just the buildings in which they worship. Also, on WP there are general consensuses relating to deletion that aren't formally codified in the deletion guidelines; for example, there is apparently some long-standing consensus that every single high school on the planet is notable, regardless of age, size of student body, availability of reliable secondary sources, etc. Along those lines, there appears to be a general consensus that significant age does impart at least some degree of notability to a synagogue, despite what the
subjective importance essay says.
IZAK (
talk)
06:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Per GNG. I advise the nominator to in the future perform the required
wp:before search, if he did not do so here. There is no need for the RS sourcing to be reflected in the article (which it appears may have been nom's assertion in his nomination) -- it need merely exist.
Epeefleche (
talk)
19:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: despite
Yoninah's extensive sourcing and rewriting efforts, I think the article still does not the notability criteria. Users Alansohn, Lesser Cartographies and Epeefleche believe that the new sources are sufficient; I disagree, and will analyze the sources (numbered according to
this revision). 1: The article is about Goldberger, not really about his synagogue. 2 is the only significant source, in my opinion. 3 is a mere listing, as would be expected in a comprehensive report. (4, 5 and 9 are passing mentions, and are only intended to support details.) 6 is a blog. 7 seems promotional, and is not in-depth in any sense. 8 is commercial, a product listing. 10 and 11 are in-depth coverage of a trivial aspect of the congregation riding on a popular recent bit of news. How does this make the synagogue notable? הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad)
19:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't even have to read through the refs, but will jump right to the last two. Hasirpad dismisses articles about the congregation's acceptance of bitcoins as "trivial" and "popular". Well, notability is built on popularity -- and of course we have oodles of articles about "popular" topics that some editors (including me) think trivial ... but our POV is not relevant, if the RSs cover the topic "in depth" as Hasirpad admits these articles do. And in-depth coverage is what we look for in GNG. Editors have to park their personal views as to whether a topic is "trivial", and accept that RS coverage is the key.
Epeefleche (
talk)
20:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, I should have foreseen that my poorly-written sentence would be misunderstood. "Trivial" was meant in an objective sense; not "unencyclopedic" (I have no POV here that I am aware of) but "not of central importance to subject". (Thought experiment: imagine an opening sentence "... is a synagogue known for accepting Bitcoin".)
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad)
20:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)reply
As long as it is covered, with in-depth coverage (as here), we really shouldn't care that our personal point of view is that the coverage is trivial (in our subjective sense; it's not objective). As far as I'm concerned, if the coverage were because a synagogue were openly polyamorous, or kept real lions adjacent to the ark rather than sculptures of them, or were the oldest synagogue in the world, or were the smallest in the world, or had a chimp as the rabbi ... I would not substitute my judgment that the matter is "trivial" with the judgment of the RSs that it is worthy of full-length articles. And that is what we look for at AfD.
Epeefleche (
talk)
21:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Question and Suggestion It appears there are enough synagogues in Baltimore, present and past, that a combination article might be possible; I even think that would be more useful than separate ones. DGG (
talk )
20:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete, I concur with
User:הסרפד's analysis of the sources; we have one good one, followed by a bunch of trivial mentions and bitcoincruft that could not be considered "substantial", as required by the
WP:GNG, by any stretch of the imagination.
Lankiveil(
speak to me)00:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC).reply
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.