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. Onel5969 (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Beth-El (Great Neck, New York)

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator as per AfD guidelines. Onel5969 (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG. See not only the RS refs in the article itself. But also those here, here, here, and here. So much coverage, I would not be surprised if this were to close as a snow keep.

I also note this nom is attempting to delete a number of other synagogue articles, which also appear to have the requisite coverage. See the top-listed 5 articles nominated by him, today, here. Epeefleche (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epeefleche - Until Arxiloxos added additional citations to several of the articles, all 5 had no more than a single external reference (including this article, or in one case, two brief mentions), which clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Not sure what you're insinuating by your above comment, but it clearly does not adhere to WP:AGF. This came about as a result of another editor who had an article which could only reference the synagogue's own webpage (it had several other references, but none which spoke to the synagogue itself), who has been declined several times by different editors at AfC. To defend his article's lack of references, he mentioned 6 other synagogues, which I took a look at. Due to the dearth of references on 5 of those articles, since they clearly did not meet WP:GNG, I nominated them for deletion. I didn't nominate the 6th (Beth Sholom Congregation (Frederick, Maryland)), since that clearly did meet GNG.Onel5969 (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume good faith. I assume simply that today you in good faith have nominated for deletion five articles in a row on synagogues, which meet GNG.

By your comment, I assume that in your deciding whether to assert that an article fails to meet GNG, you only looked at the refs in the article itself? And did not independently google for refs that were not in the article, but that did in fact satisfy GNG? Is my understanding correct? Epeefleche (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by your comment, it would appear that you weren't AGF. You're also incorrect that I didn't check references. Regarding this article, for instance, a google search revealed a FB page, the org's website, the Wikipedia entry, a mention on foursquare.com, a mention on greatschools.org, several mentions to Cosmopolitan Caterers (which apparently is the caterer of the Synagogue), a listing on nonprofitfacts.com, a few wedding announcements, a listing on wow.com, a blank entry on seathound.com, a listing on www.longislandexchange.com, a map on maven.co.il, a yelp listing, a mirror listing on digplanet, a legal complaint being reinstated against the synagogue, and two more business listings. None of which would show GNG. That's the first two pages in their entirety on Bing. Similar results were for the other articles as well. So, by your comments, I assume you are again attempting to insinuate something. Regardless, have a nice day. Onel5969 (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What User talk:Onel5969 is that the sole in-line reference in the article at the time he posted it to AFD was a book about Great Neck published by Rutgers University Press. This, and the other synagogues in the mass deletion attempt, are not hard to source. A tag pointing out the need for sources would have been appropriate, rushing to AFD is, well, hard to understand in this case.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969-You clearly did not do an adequate search on the diffs I posted above. Just the Gnews diff alone shows many RS sources supporting GNG. Plus, you don't understand what AgF stands for. It does not mean "assume the rules were followed" or "assume competence in editing". It does not mean that editors cannot criticize your actions. When you nominate 5 articles in a row for AfD, and they attract 2 dozen Keep !votes, zero Delete !votes, and Snow closes. Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you clearly do not understand what AGF means, nor the Wikipedia pillar of civility, as evidenced once again by your personal attack in this latest post. I suggest you re-read both of those, since you have failed to abide by them in discussion. Criticism is one thing, accusation and insinuation something entirely different. As is repeated mis-statements. And with that, as in keeping with tenets of civility, I will leave this discussion. Onel5969 (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already responded to.

But I should add ... you might bolster the assumption of good faith by withdrawing your remaining, not-yet-SNOW-closed, nominations ... all of which have attracted unanimous "Keep" disagreement with your assertion of non-notability. I am surprised that you haven't ... in good faith ... done so.

The only benefit of these remaining open at this point is that more editors vote Keep, confirming that contrary to your nomination assertions sufficient GNG coverage did in fact exist. And perhaps impelling you to do better wp:before searches before your next nomination. And, I suppose, more editors may join those who have already said as much to you in these five AfDs.

Another sign of good faith on your part would be for you to say: "Yes, I hear what a number of editors have said, understand that my nominations require a more careful wp:before search, and have taken that on board and it will inform my future nominations." Have yet to hear that from you. Perhaps it is too much to ask, because you will feel a loss of face. But I hope your future nominations comport with such a view. Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the reliable and verifiable sources already in the article, as well as those added above by EF, which establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep long standing, well-sourced, well-edited that conspicuously meets WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2015 (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.