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.
Non-notable congregation. No evidence of notability. Basket of Puppies 08:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article states it is the largest Jewish congregation in Virginia. That's a claim of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of factual interest, but does this fact alone make it notable? I think not. Has it attained external attention/notability due to that fact? Chesdovi (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, claims of notability and sourcing to back up those claims are substantially different things. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems to have hundreds of articles in which it appears, and well over 100 books, though I haven't yet had time to wade through all the refs. While ghits alone is not our test, such wide coverage of a house of worship is often a good initial harbinger of notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only book available at goole worth something is [1]. The rest are non-starters. Chesdovi (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you deduct references on youtube, facebook and yellow pages, it leaves little left of the "hundreds" of references on google. Chesdovi (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK, the demolish essay only applies while an article is actively going through expansion. This article was 12 October 2006, defying any possibility of the demolish essay being applicible. Basket of Puppies 14:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking through the Google results linked by Epeefleche, we find quite a bit of substantive coverage of this large congregation, including lots of coverage the prominent, oft-quoted, "glass-ceiling"-breaking[2] rabbi, an unpleasant but thoroughly-reported incident of anti-Semitic vandalism[3][4], and an architecturally significant building[5]. I conclude that this one falls squarely on the "keep" side of the notability spectrum for congregations. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Arxiloxos. Thanks for culling through the extensive material, and citing those examples of notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The google sources seem to establish notability. --nsaum75!Dígame¡ 04:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources provided during this AfD establish notability. Jayjg (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Jayjg - --Yoavd (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERNOM is an essay that contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a Wikipedia policy. I, for one, see little merit in it -- if an editor wishes to say "I agree w/editor x, for the reasons he stated" -- that is fine. No need for him to clutter the page by repeating the same words, slightly varied.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Basket: We get the point. You made your point. You don't like these articles about these synagogues, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please stop passing "judgment" on multiple users in a row as this may well be a violation of WP:CITESPAM and WP:HARASS. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are clearly enough to warrant an entry. Yossiea (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given the last 8 keeps in a row here, and the references reflecting notability, this would seem to me to be a viable candidate to be snow-closed. No need for the community to spend any more time on this -- there are more productive pursuits to which their talents could be better applied elsewhere on the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the largest congregation in Virginia and one of the largest in the United States to be led by a female Rabbi, backed by a reliable and verifiable source, the claims of notability justify retention. Alansohn (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to Epeefleche and Arxiloxos for digging up the references I didn't have time to find. Well done. Cullen328 (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No point citing supposed sources here without adding them. This article has not changed much since 2007 and if no one is willing to build it to make it acceptable per GNG, better had let it go. Chesdovi (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that mis-states how AFD works. If the refs exists, that suffices. It does not matter whether they are added to the article--that is not the AFD criterion.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lol. So it will be re-nominated every few months until they are added! If Barak Obama was not sourced, it would not exist. Chesdovi (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being clear. You seem to believe that the test is whether the refs exist in the article itself. That's not the test.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a new article. Since the Afd, no sources have been added. What's the point of keeping if it will remain static? Chesdovi (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are working within the AfD guidelines, when we !vote as to whether an article should be deleted per wp rules. WP rules do not require that the refs exist in the article -- it is sufficient that they exist (and sufficient certainly for the AFD discussion if they are pointed out in the AFD discussion, though that is not a requirement either). If you don't think that is a wise policy, the place to address it would be at the AFD guideline itself, I would suggest. Per the AFD guidline, an article should not even be nominated in the first place if the (required) good-faith attempt to confirm whether sources exist shows that they do exist--there is no requirement whatsoever that the sources appear as refs in the article itself.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Arxiloxo. More than enough sources to establish notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Google Books results mentioned above. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 19:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is becoming increasingly difficult to take the nominator seriously because he has made no effort to engage editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM who would have the potential interest in working with him to resolve his concerns. Never in the history of synagogue articles on WP have so many articles about Jewish synagogues been nominated for deletion within days starting from here to those he has attacked so far: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], plus requesting speedy deletion of many others: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] (and more such efforts) within so short a span of time by one user, i.e. Basket of Puppies (talk·contribs)}. How much longer will this go on and be tolerated? This type of gung-ho come-what-may rigid "enforcement" deletionism automatically undermines WP:CONSENSUS-building and is bound to lead to future WP:EDITWARRING as more editors with a genuine interest in this topic feel violated and outraged as it undermines WP:AGF when such a wave of actions are conducted giving expert editors limited ability to improve the articles. IZAK (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2011 (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.