- 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 delete. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 09:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Congregation Tifereth Israel (Glen Cove, New York) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely unsourced since creation and subject to consistent copyright violation (from Congregation's website) by COI editors. WP:BEFORE discloses only strictly local coverage of routine events. This is almost entirely information about services and holy days being celebrated. There is no apparent evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The coverage that is reliable is not significant and the coverage that is significant is not independent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete & Salt This article keep being rebuilt as a copyvio, so lets kill it an lock it down.
TomStar81 (
Talk)
14:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- ADDENDUM: delete because it fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:NOT, specifically we're not a platform to advertise. TomStar81 ( Talk) 14:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and salt per TomStar NW1223( Howl at me| My hunts) 14:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not going to vote the opposite of delete because of the probelmatical history of this article, but there's at least one good source [1] and likely a second [2] which I can't preview. However, if the article is kept I think ECP is well in order. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 15:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- @
78.26: The first source has extensive similarities to the text that was copyvio. Both books are from
Arcadia Publishing and are poor sources because Arcadia publishes mostly local history to local audiences and their works do not reach larger ones. I can find no citations of either in GScholar, for instance. Given the similarity of the text we are able to see to that which is now hidden from the article, the authors probably just copied text supplied by the Congregation itself.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib)
16:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe so, or perhaps the article author copied from the book. Arcadia is a specialist source, I don't consider them a poor source. That said, neither are they a source that should trump a peer-reviewed scholarly work, but to use only sources that are cited in GScholar would be a remarkable change in notability policy. They certainly market to locals and to tourists of a given area. Copyvio should obviously not stand in any form, and if no one wants to build a neutrally-written, copyvio-free article based on RS, then this topic meets its fate. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- @
78.26: The first source has extensive similarities to the text that was copyvio. Both books are from
Arcadia Publishing and are poor sources because Arcadia publishes mostly local history to local audiences and their works do not reach larger ones. I can find no citations of either in GScholar, for instance. Given the similarity of the text we are able to see to that which is now hidden from the article, the authors probably just copied text supplied by the Congregation itself.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib)
16:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and protect - persistent COI editing is not a rationale for deletion ( WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP). Oldest continuously operating synagogue on Long Island is a strong indicator of notability. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 22:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- The presented rationale in the nomination is not cleanup; it is firmly grounded in WP:N and WP:NORG due to the complete lack of significant coverage. Please identify which notability standard or content guideline states "Oldest X in Y location" is notable in the absence of significant coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Needs more references, I am afraid. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 10:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Tomstar81. "Oldest continuously operating" alone fails WP:1E. Avilich ( talk) 21:53, 19 October 2021 (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.
- 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 delete. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 09:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Congregation Tifereth Israel (Glen Cove, New York) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely unsourced since creation and subject to consistent copyright violation (from Congregation's website) by COI editors. WP:BEFORE discloses only strictly local coverage of routine events. This is almost entirely information about services and holy days being celebrated. There is no apparent evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The coverage that is reliable is not significant and the coverage that is significant is not independent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete & Salt This article keep being rebuilt as a copyvio, so lets kill it an lock it down.
TomStar81 (
Talk)
14:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- ADDENDUM: delete because it fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:NOT, specifically we're not a platform to advertise. TomStar81 ( Talk) 14:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and salt per TomStar NW1223( Howl at me| My hunts) 14:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not going to vote the opposite of delete because of the probelmatical history of this article, but there's at least one good source [1] and likely a second [2] which I can't preview. However, if the article is kept I think ECP is well in order. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 15:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- @
78.26: The first source has extensive similarities to the text that was copyvio. Both books are from
Arcadia Publishing and are poor sources because Arcadia publishes mostly local history to local audiences and their works do not reach larger ones. I can find no citations of either in GScholar, for instance. Given the similarity of the text we are able to see to that which is now hidden from the article, the authors probably just copied text supplied by the Congregation itself.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib)
16:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe so, or perhaps the article author copied from the book. Arcadia is a specialist source, I don't consider them a poor source. That said, neither are they a source that should trump a peer-reviewed scholarly work, but to use only sources that are cited in GScholar would be a remarkable change in notability policy. They certainly market to locals and to tourists of a given area. Copyvio should obviously not stand in any form, and if no one wants to build a neutrally-written, copyvio-free article based on RS, then this topic meets its fate. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- @
78.26: The first source has extensive similarities to the text that was copyvio. Both books are from
Arcadia Publishing and are poor sources because Arcadia publishes mostly local history to local audiences and their works do not reach larger ones. I can find no citations of either in GScholar, for instance. Given the similarity of the text we are able to see to that which is now hidden from the article, the authors probably just copied text supplied by the Congregation itself.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib)
16:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and protect - persistent COI editing is not a rationale for deletion ( WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP). Oldest continuously operating synagogue on Long Island is a strong indicator of notability. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 22:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- The presented rationale in the nomination is not cleanup; it is firmly grounded in WP:N and WP:NORG due to the complete lack of significant coverage. Please identify which notability standard or content guideline states "Oldest X in Y location" is notable in the absence of significant coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Needs more references, I am afraid. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 10:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Tomstar81. "Oldest continuously operating" alone fails WP:1E. Avilich ( talk) 21:53, 19 October 2021 (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.