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) 21:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Beth El (Madison, Wisconsin)

[edit]
Temple Beth El (Madison, Wisconsin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I note this nom is also attempting to delete a number of other synagogue articles, which also appear to have the requisite coverage. See the 5-top-listed articles nominated by him, today, here. (I'm commenting on similar AfD nominations today by nom that suffer from the same malady in the nomination; I'm not saying that nom acted in bad faith - just that he is seeking today to delete five synagogue articles on the same unwarranted basis ... perhaps he didn't carefully and exhaustively perform google, and gnews, and gbooks searches). Epeefleche (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969. You apparently haven't read or taken to heart what I've written to you here and in this discussion and in the other AfDs. Or perhaps you're confused by what the requirements are. First, I've made no inaccurate comments.
Second, you say "The articles clearly failed GNG when nominated." That's plainly false. You seem to suffer from a misapprehension that an article fails to meet GNG if the GNG refs are not in the article. That's simply incorrect. As long as the requisite RS sources exist, the article meets GNG whether or not the sources are reflected as refs in the article. Please take a moment to understand this. You are required as a nom, under wp:before, to understand and act in accordance with the wp:before rule that "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination."
Third, as a nom, you have an obligation under wp:before to search for additional sources. And "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." The RS refs reflecting that these synagogues you nominated for deletion did in fact meet GNG (the opposite of your assertion in your nominations) were all discoverable by performing google searches. Yet you, by your own admission, stopped short in your google searches after 2 or 3 pages. That's not appropriate. Had you performed the searches as you were required to perform them, you would have seen that the appropriate RS sources existed, and that the articles met GNG, and would not have incorrectly asserted otherwise and wasted the time of other editors with (good faith, no doubt) erroneous assertions and improper AFD nominations. That you did this with five articles in a row is a sign that you should take another look at you approach, and carefully understand WP:BEFORE, prior to making further nominations.
Finally, when as here you see 2 dozen !votes to Keep the articles you nominated for deletion, and zero !votes supporting your nominations, and your nominations are being SNOW-closed after a day or two as not having a snowball's chance in hell of being agreed with, it may be a good time to reconsider your practices. Many thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Epeefleche - Simply because you say something occurred the way you say it did, doesn't mean that's what happened. As was carefully explained to you, I followed the EXACT procedure as put down in AfD, and did not find the references. In the same criteria you quote above, you conveniently leave out the end of that criteria: "Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform." Which is exactly what I did. You feel that the search was not exhaustive enough. Fine. You have a right to your opinion. You do not have the right to make accusatory statements based on that opinion. If you truly were a proponent of AGF, you would not then make (and continue to make even after it was explained to you) the incorrect and accusatory statement, "... he is seeking today to delete five synagogue articles on the same unwarranted basis ...". It was not unwarranted, and your incorrect assertion that it was is uncalled for. As per WP:UNCIVIL, I attempted to open a discourse with you, and you continue to put forth your personal attacks. These personal attacks have encouraged others to also engage in personal attacks. You may need to re-read the policy on civility.Onel5969 (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at this article as it stood at the time User talk:Onel5969 posted it to AFD as part of an attempted group deletion of articles about American synagogues. While it is true that this article at that time entirely lacked sources, it contained conspicuous indications of probable notability, including a blue-linked rabbi. Rushing to AFD was clearly uncollegial and inappropriate. I suggest that User talk:Onel5969 might do better to admit that he was wrong and apologize; arguing aggressively with editors who called him on so very odd a move as a mass-deletion of long-standing synagogue pages, is piing inappropriate behavior atop an exceedingly odd mass deletion. Kudos to User:Epeefleche & User:Arxiloxos for sourcing this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Onel5969 - You failed to follow wp:before. First, you have repeatedly asserted, even after it was pointed out to you that it was flatly wrong, that the "articles clearly failed GNG when nominated." Obviously, if you have read and understand wp:before, you know the opposite is true.
Second, you failed to do a proper wp:before search. Otherwise, all 5 of these articles would not have been nominated. Even without looking further than the 2 pages per search (or sometimes 3) that you limited yourself to -- which I would advise you to expand, given the poor results of your 5 synagogue nominations -- I see sufficient RS coverage to meet GNG. But obviously, your history of review suggests that you do not fall within the "most cases" category, and you need to do a more comprehensive and careful review in order not to nominate a series of SNOW-closed AfDs.
My statement was true. You nominated at AfD 5 synagogues. You did it on an unwarranted basis. How can you disagree with that?
These are not personal attacks. Nor are they violations of AGF. You perhaps misunderstand both. You are not being attacked. Your actions are being criticized. And rightly so. Further, understand that AGF is an assumption. A rebuttable presumption. Despite AGF, we do in fact routinely block editors, and topic ban editors -- we don't say that because of AGF we can't do so. I personally still assume you acted in good faith though.
If you took your car out five days in a row, and each day got into a fender bender, we wouldn't say you did so in bad faith. But we would be quite correct to suggest that before you take your car out again, you should review your procedures. Because you are doing something quite wrong, as we can tell from the results. Such is the case here. Epeefleche (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And as I stated in another thread, with this, I'm done listening to this lack of civility, as per the wiki guidelines on dealing with uncivil folks. Have a nice day, all.Onel5969 (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that Onel5969 was acting in good faith. Onel5969 has explained that these five AfDs were filed in response to a complaint from the author of Draft:Kol Hadash Humanistic Congregation, a submitted draft that has been declined twice at WP:AfC, pointing to these articles as being unsourced while the Kol Hadash draft has multiple sources and was rejected nonetheless.
I would like to address two concerns I see arising from this narrative. First, it appears to me that a reasonable case might be made for the notability of Kol Hadash Humanistic Congregation, based on sources like these: a 2008 NPR story [1]; a detailed 2008 article in the Chicago Tribune [2]; and a detailed 2014 story from WBEZ [3]; as well as a number of other articles about the congregation's rabbi, Adam Chalom, who is described in some articles as the most prominent American leader of the Humanistic Judaism movement since the death of Sherwin Wine. (The proposed draft has other problems that need addressing, particularly its highly promotional tone.)
But second, even if we assume for the moment that Kol Hadash isn't notable, there were some immediately obvious differences that made these five AfDs inappropriate. These are five older, large, mainstream congregations, each of which had some clear indication of likely notability right in the text of the article: a landmark building, prominent rabbi(s), long history, large congregation, history of influence in the community. In other words, these AfDs did not involve small or obscure neighborhood shuls, but important institutions of the sort that generally have articles on Wikipedia. The articles can all be improved, to be sure, but the problems were self-evidently surmountable, and AfD is not cleanup. So it is not surprising that experienced editors became concerned when they saw the AfDs. And in each case, my very quick check of Google, Google Books, Google News, and/or Google Scholar immediately turned up sources to verify notability. Also, as IZAK has noted elsewhere, many resources are available on Jewish topics that are not necessarily known to those unfamiliar with the area.
At this point, I think the AfDs that are still open can and should be closed; it doesn't sound like anyone still has doubts about the notability of the temple (or the others), and it can be hoped that going forward, we can take some constructive guidance from the experience. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:26, 19 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.
More