Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There are enough arguments being made here by long-term and experienced hands at AFD that sources should exist. Based on this, I find it impossible to conclude that there is a consensus for deletion here. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Temple Anshe Amunim (Pittsfield, Massachusetts)

Temple Anshe Amunim (Pittsfield, Massachusetts) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks independent sources, fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. TM 11:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
None of the information provided is independent of the organization.-- TM 00:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply
TM, I think that's understood. This is a genuine difference of opinion. It's likely, and perhaps even near-certain, that local reliable sources exist that would establish notability. Reasonable people can disagree whether that means we should have no article until that information is unearthed, only a stub article, or an article with not much in the way of WP:RS for the immediate future. Where existing institutions are concerned, I prefer to be a more conservative (congregations that no longer exist would have a lower bar, in my opinion, because there's less opportunity for tomfoolery). The community may prefer DGG's interpretation, and that's fine. WP:RS is a means to an end, after all, and where it interferes with getting to that end (as I think DGG might argue it does here), we're free to ignore or amend it. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 01:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'd like to see other documentation supporting that it is the 4th oldest congregation of its type in its area, but that is an assertion of significance and I am inclined to believe it is true. Search of New York Times yields 9 hits under "Anshe Amium" which are funerals and weddings conducted there, and 7 similar but older hits under one of its alternative names, Anshe Amonim, by the way. I believe there will exist significant coverage of the congregation and its buildings in sources not online, not yet identified in the article, so best to keep and let it be developed. -- do ncr am 03:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Wedding and funeral announcements are routine coverage, not significant coverage. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 03:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply
I didn't say otherwise, about the weddings and funerals, though they do suggest some notability of people associated with the congregation. I just looked in the NYTimes database. Again, I think 4th-oldest Reform congregation in New England is a fairly significant assertion, and I expect that there will exist significant coverage of the congregation and its buildings in sources not online, not yet identified in the article, so best to keep and let it be developed. -- do ncr am 14:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to answer the question asked by Lesser Cartographies: We seem to use the term "Reliable Sources" in two meanings: sources that are sufficiently reliable and substantial and independent to show notability by the very fact that they exist, thus demonstrating that others think the subject important to write about, & therefore satisfying the GNG; and sources reliable enough to establish a fact. In the case of plain facts, such sources need not be independent--information about when an organization was founded & who started it, & who the leaders have been are the sort of facts for which an organization's own publications can be trusted unless there is reason to doubt them--as sometimes does happen. The argument for notability here is that what these sources show is sufficient to demonstrate notability in an ordinary sense, and that we should accept this sense, not necessarily following the limitations of the GNG. I think we should in general--the GNG is over-rated in importance-by now I think we all realize that its requirements ( substantiality, independence, etc. are terms that can be interpreted in many ways, depending primarily upon whether we want to find a subject notable. Given any particular situation (including this one) most of us are capable of constructing an argument using them in either direction. That doesn't necessarily mean using the GNG is worthless, because some interpretations will be more strained than others. It does mean it has to be seen as a guide only, one among others. Regardless of what' was written down 10 years ago, that is what we now do in practice. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Doncram's findings. Right now, the article has no independent sources: no secondary sources whatsoever. If Doncram's discovered nothing beyond trivial things happening at the building, there's really no solid online coverage of this place. We can't retain just anything that predates the Internet because it might have print coverage: by that argument, we'd keep any biography of a person who's older than Al Gore. I will happily change my vote if I know that someone's produced solid offline coverage, but unless that should happen, we have to delete, because we don't make decisions on predictions. Nyttend ( talk) 05:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Huh??? I don't like the personal tone in Nyttend's comment. Some disclosure: he and I have past history. What is the statement that if i personally haven't discovered something, there must not be anything? Is that sarcasm? Given past history, i doubt the comment was meant to credit me with any positive skill. Anyhow, I had the NYTimes database open for something else and ran a quick search, that's all. I make no assertion that I did anywhere near a complete job in searching in news databases that are available to me and probably others here. And, for another thing, the comment's linking to wp:CRYSTALBALL seems odd as there are no predictions within the article. Nyttend, please don't make any further comment about me here and I will not make any further comment about you. You used my name twice, i used yours twice, let's stop. -- do ncr am 15:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Your findings showed that there was no substantial coverage. I marvel that you instantly made this personal, commenting on the contributor instead of the contribution in defiance of our expected standards of behavior and decorum; once again, I warn you that any more of this will result in a request for arbitration enforcement. I came here to participate in the AFD, not to hear your comments on my motives. Nyttend ( talk) 21:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Umm, I further disagree with the comment that my findings show there exist no substantial coverage. It's hard to prove a negative like that, and I have clearly disavowed doing any serious attempt to research available news databases.
And, umm, i absolutely did not comment on your motives; i said there is past history, which you confirm. I do comment that your reasoning is off-base, about the article: you assert that if doncram's search in NYTimes database doesn't come up with substantial coverage, then no substantial coverage exists, which is just bizarre. Only NYTimes coverage is valid? You don't answer the question, what did you mean by your statement about me. And I find that your commenting about me including invoking my name twice is odd, given that, indeed, you have several times stated "warnings" about personally-directed comments. So you yourself, please don't make personally-directed comments, then, like you did here first, and which you have done again. -- do ncr am 01:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC) reply

-- do ncr am 01:06, 16 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Temple_Anshe_Amunim_(Pittsfield,_Massachusetts)&oldid=1138825796"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There are enough arguments being made here by long-term and experienced hands at AFD that sources should exist. Based on this, I find it impossible to conclude that there is a consensus for deletion here. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Temple Anshe Amunim (Pittsfield, Massachusetts)

Temple Anshe Amunim (Pittsfield, Massachusetts) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks independent sources, fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. TM 11:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
None of the information provided is independent of the organization.-- TM 00:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply
TM, I think that's understood. This is a genuine difference of opinion. It's likely, and perhaps even near-certain, that local reliable sources exist that would establish notability. Reasonable people can disagree whether that means we should have no article until that information is unearthed, only a stub article, or an article with not much in the way of WP:RS for the immediate future. Where existing institutions are concerned, I prefer to be a more conservative (congregations that no longer exist would have a lower bar, in my opinion, because there's less opportunity for tomfoolery). The community may prefer DGG's interpretation, and that's fine. WP:RS is a means to an end, after all, and where it interferes with getting to that end (as I think DGG might argue it does here), we're free to ignore or amend it. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 01:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'd like to see other documentation supporting that it is the 4th oldest congregation of its type in its area, but that is an assertion of significance and I am inclined to believe it is true. Search of New York Times yields 9 hits under "Anshe Amium" which are funerals and weddings conducted there, and 7 similar but older hits under one of its alternative names, Anshe Amonim, by the way. I believe there will exist significant coverage of the congregation and its buildings in sources not online, not yet identified in the article, so best to keep and let it be developed. -- do ncr am 03:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Wedding and funeral announcements are routine coverage, not significant coverage. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 03:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply
I didn't say otherwise, about the weddings and funerals, though they do suggest some notability of people associated with the congregation. I just looked in the NYTimes database. Again, I think 4th-oldest Reform congregation in New England is a fairly significant assertion, and I expect that there will exist significant coverage of the congregation and its buildings in sources not online, not yet identified in the article, so best to keep and let it be developed. -- do ncr am 14:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to answer the question asked by Lesser Cartographies: We seem to use the term "Reliable Sources" in two meanings: sources that are sufficiently reliable and substantial and independent to show notability by the very fact that they exist, thus demonstrating that others think the subject important to write about, & therefore satisfying the GNG; and sources reliable enough to establish a fact. In the case of plain facts, such sources need not be independent--information about when an organization was founded & who started it, & who the leaders have been are the sort of facts for which an organization's own publications can be trusted unless there is reason to doubt them--as sometimes does happen. The argument for notability here is that what these sources show is sufficient to demonstrate notability in an ordinary sense, and that we should accept this sense, not necessarily following the limitations of the GNG. I think we should in general--the GNG is over-rated in importance-by now I think we all realize that its requirements ( substantiality, independence, etc. are terms that can be interpreted in many ways, depending primarily upon whether we want to find a subject notable. Given any particular situation (including this one) most of us are capable of constructing an argument using them in either direction. That doesn't necessarily mean using the GNG is worthless, because some interpretations will be more strained than others. It does mean it has to be seen as a guide only, one among others. Regardless of what' was written down 10 years ago, that is what we now do in practice. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Doncram's findings. Right now, the article has no independent sources: no secondary sources whatsoever. If Doncram's discovered nothing beyond trivial things happening at the building, there's really no solid online coverage of this place. We can't retain just anything that predates the Internet because it might have print coverage: by that argument, we'd keep any biography of a person who's older than Al Gore. I will happily change my vote if I know that someone's produced solid offline coverage, but unless that should happen, we have to delete, because we don't make decisions on predictions. Nyttend ( talk) 05:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Huh??? I don't like the personal tone in Nyttend's comment. Some disclosure: he and I have past history. What is the statement that if i personally haven't discovered something, there must not be anything? Is that sarcasm? Given past history, i doubt the comment was meant to credit me with any positive skill. Anyhow, I had the NYTimes database open for something else and ran a quick search, that's all. I make no assertion that I did anywhere near a complete job in searching in news databases that are available to me and probably others here. And, for another thing, the comment's linking to wp:CRYSTALBALL seems odd as there are no predictions within the article. Nyttend, please don't make any further comment about me here and I will not make any further comment about you. You used my name twice, i used yours twice, let's stop. -- do ncr am 15:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Your findings showed that there was no substantial coverage. I marvel that you instantly made this personal, commenting on the contributor instead of the contribution in defiance of our expected standards of behavior and decorum; once again, I warn you that any more of this will result in a request for arbitration enforcement. I came here to participate in the AFD, not to hear your comments on my motives. Nyttend ( talk) 21:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Umm, I further disagree with the comment that my findings show there exist no substantial coverage. It's hard to prove a negative like that, and I have clearly disavowed doing any serious attempt to research available news databases.
And, umm, i absolutely did not comment on your motives; i said there is past history, which you confirm. I do comment that your reasoning is off-base, about the article: you assert that if doncram's search in NYTimes database doesn't come up with substantial coverage, then no substantial coverage exists, which is just bizarre. Only NYTimes coverage is valid? You don't answer the question, what did you mean by your statement about me. And I find that your commenting about me including invoking my name twice is odd, given that, indeed, you have several times stated "warnings" about personally-directed comments. So you yourself, please don't make personally-directed comments, then, like you did here first, and which you have done again. -- do ncr am 01:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC) reply

-- do ncr am 01:06, 16 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Temple_Anshe_Amunim_(Pittsfield,_Massachusetts)&oldid=1138825796"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE