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 was a majority of keepers. I have read each of the sources, and none of the independent sources address the subject directly and in detail. What we have are specific facts about, and aspects of the work of, the subject that are sourced. Putting these sources together has led a majority of editors to judge that WP:GNG has been met. The Denver Post articles were particularly highlighted. I am handicapped in assessing them since I cannot see the full text through the pay wall. However, from the summary, the 2003 article majors on a topic and clearly exemplifies at least three different congregations. The 1995 appears to be majoring on an initiative of this congregation, but on a specific campaign not the subject as a whole. Having said that, it is the views of the commentators that count and a majority of them are satisfied that the sources meet the notability guidelines. However, because I consider that the better arguments of the deleters balances out their numerical deficit, I regard 'no consensus' as a fair summary of the discussion. TerriersFan (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Sinai (Denver, Colorado)[edit]

Temple Sinai (Denver, Colorado) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable congregation. No evidence of notability. Basket of Puppies 08:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability. Article does not even contain an assertion of notability per WP:N or WP:ORG. --Orlady (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it's a valid WP:STUB. IZAK (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the length is appropriate for a stub, but even stubs are supposed to be about notable topics. --Orlady (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a notable subject so why delete it almost on sight? Stubs are very frequently granted "stays of execution" by editors who care about the subject based on the following that I try to follow: Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Some articles take years to improve and very few are born perfect. IZAK (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, this is not a brand-new stub. It was created in February 2008. Until the recent addition of "The temple's maintenance manual was featured in The Temple Management Manual...", the article had no assertion of notability -- no indication of anything about the synagogue that would make it anything other than "run of the mill". I do not see the republication of the temple's list of annual maintenance jobs (e.g., when to sweep the parking lot, when to order "winter supplies", and when to have the Torah covers dry cleaned) as indicating notability, but at least it's an assertion. --Orlady (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stating "valid STUB" is not an accepted rationale for keeping an article. All articles must be notable. I strongly suggest that IZAK reviews the notability guidelines before further commenting on AfDs. Basket of Puppies 14:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The synagogue does seem to be discussed in a number of books and scholarly articles that mention inter alia the Rabbi, his founding of the synagogue, and the synagogue building (and its mural).[1][2] In addition, there are a few hundred news articles, that I haven't had time to sift through to gauge when it is helpful, but that is often a good harbinger of notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as IZAK --Yoavd (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:PERNOM Basket of Puppies 04:09, 22 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) 04:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Izak et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:PERNOM Basket of Puppies 04:09, 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) 08:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• IZAK, I strongly suggest you review WP:CITESPAM. It's awfully confusing for you to claim that I am inserting inappropriate links into article space for the purposes of increasing coverage in an inappropriate way in this AfD. If you would like administrative review of this then I strongly support this as it would be odd for any admin to find me in violation of adding spam links into articles while participating in this AfD. As for WP:HARASS, your argument holds no water whatsoever. Basket of Puppies 12:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This appears to be a run of the mill Synagogue that fails to have any specific notability per WP:NONPROFIT or WP:GNG. It makes no claims of notability in the article itself other than the original research claim of WP:ONEEVENT of having its maintenance manual appear in print - which does not appear to have generated any secondary reliable source coverage at all. I also tried to find any evidence of it being a nationally famous local organization, but failed to. I have also found no evidence of particularly unique longevity, size of membership, major achievements, or prominent scandals. In terms of GNG, I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage for any general factors either. Looking through the references Epeefleche has suggested turns up passing references only. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Article seems somewhat notable to me. It could def. use some more sources and possibly expand. Tinton5 (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you saying WP:INTERESTING? Or what? --Orlady (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I made an effort to dig up something on Google or Google Books, and could only come up with passing references to the temple being on the register of historic places; however, I could not find a link. It seems like the former senior rabbi, Raymond A. Zwerin, is notable as a rabbi and author, and deserves his own page. Yoninah (talk) 14:46, 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: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], plus requesting speedy deletion of many others: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] (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) 23:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Large number of synagogue article deletion proposals. IZAK (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Followup comment. Epeefleche has done an impressive amount of work finding sourced information about this temple and adding it the article. My "delete" opinion is, however, unchanged. The fact that the temple maintenance schedule (typical contents are specifications on when each year to get the parking lot swept and the Torah cover dry-cleaned) is reproduced in a published book on synagogue operation does not make this synagogue notable. The existence of a colorful mural in the school does not make it notable; this is not a mural by a famous artist, but the kind of run-of-the-mill mural that every nonnotable elementary school in my city has. Piloting the use of a workbook is laudable, but does not make the synagogue notable. The entire synagogue spending a day removing graffiti in 1995 also is laudable, but it's a run-of-the-mill action for a religious organization (unfortunate that there's so much of this kind of work to be done in the world!), and the fact that it is documented in a news article available online does not make the synagogue notable. A run-of-the-mill synagogue. --Orlady (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Orlady. Question -- if you personally find something non-notable, but an RS devotes an entire article to it, per wp guidelines would you not be constrained (whatever your personal views) to view it as notable? In other words -- wouldn't you agree that it is not important whether any of us editors view what the synagogue is covered for is signficant -- but rather that the synagogue has received significant coverage in RSs?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of that coverage is "significant" (many, many things are documented in publications that Wikipedia deems reliable sources without being significant coverage for an encyclopedia topic, and that graffiti removal day is just one example) and none of it indicates notability as described by WP:ORG. --Orlady (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Think of this another way: If your wedding announcement is published by the New York Times, with a nice little biography of you and a description of the quirky floral arrangements used at the wedding, it doesn't mean that you or your floral designer are now a notable topic for an encyclopedia article. --Orlady (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I disagree. An entire article in The Denver Post, for example, is IMHO without question significant coverage in an RS. It matters not a jot what the subject is -- if the article is on a synagogue, of course it is likely to be of a typical synagogue activity (that the RS deems worthy of a full article). Just as if it were of a baseball player, in the normal course it would be of his normal activity. GNG does not allow for editor POV to interfere with the strictures of the guideline, and insert (where it is not written) that the subject of the full-length RS article has to be one that the editor thinks is worth the RS covering in the first place. We avoid that, by having a guideline -- GNG (which says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article")-- that focuses on significant RS coverage, not coverage by an RS of a significant (in the editor's view) subject. With all due respect.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Epeefleche, it sounds like you and Orlady have a differing interpretation of WP:NOTNEWS which states, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." It would strike me that Orlady is correct in this instance, and that a graffiti removal day falls under WP:NOTNEWS and is not notable enough for inclusion. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No. We do have a difference of view, but it is over GNG, and whether the subject of the article by an RS need be on a subject that an editor thinks is a significant subject. WP:NOTNEWS is not about full articles in RSs -- it is about things such as routine wedding announcements and sports scores. This is a full article; quite a different animal altogether.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Well, in addition to you having differing views with Orlady, you and I appear to have differing views of the application of NOTNEWS. But that is not worth arguing as it appears we will not reach agreement on our interpretations of what the difference between being reported in the news and being a notable event, regardless of which policy you feel applies. I reiterate that not everything in the news is notable enough to be written in a Wikipedia article (or have an entire article written about it). ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The Denver Post articles I've seen are very much in the nature of routine coverage, specifically routine coverage on the newspaper religion page. In 2011 this may not be so common, but back in 1995 (when the graffiti cleanup story ran), most newspapers employed reporters who wrote feature stories about local churches every week, telling about Lutherans who volunteered at a soup kitchen, or a new meditation garden at the Episcopal Church, or the Baptists who were sponsoring several refugee families, or new stained glass windows in the Catholic church, or the efforts of local Hindus to educate their American-born children about a Hindu holiday observance. I can still find stories like these in my local paper (though not as many as there were in 1995) to show you how commonplace this kind of story is. This is routine run-of-the-mill garden-variety newspaper content, not something that belongs in Wikipedia, and the Denver Post content about this synagogue falls exactly within this pattern. --Orlady (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The Denver Post article I pointed to is a full article, as Orlady says -- a "feature story" (note: feature stories are anything but routine; they even have a Pulitzer Prize awarded for the best of them ... see the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing; the Pulitzer does not, of course, give out any prizes for routine coverage, such as routine wedding announcements and sports scores). Clearly distinguishable from a run-of-the-mill routine reference such as NOTNEWS refers to. Those are references such as one-line "synagogue x is holding services Friday". This is nothing of the sort.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Considering the coverage in the Denver Post I'd have to agree with Epeefleche that this meets the WP:GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per the coverage, which reflects notability, as most of the commenters here have indicated. As mentioned above, for example, full-length feature articles in top-level RSs are anything but "routine, trivial coverage", and to the extent that any delete !votes are based on that thinking, they do not to me seem to follow wp guidance on the matter.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Epeefleche, which Denver Post article are you referring to? Is it [26] where this synagogue are reported as planning community service tasks? Or [27] where this synagogue has a passing mention about building a garden? Could you clarify which reliable source coverage you are hanging your position on more specifically? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you miss the Denver Post article devoted to the synagogue's activities?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Which one is that? The only two I see in the article are the two listed above. Which one are you referring to? It would be helpful if you clarified as clearly it is a major factor in your reasoning and perhaps that would make the strength of your conviction on this issue a bit clearer to those of us who don't understand it. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Virginia Culver (September 9, 1995). "Temple members plan good-deed day; They will fulfill a mitzvah with 40 projects". Denver Post. I hope that will be helpful. I've noticed that recently you seem to have expressed non-consensus views as to the notability of synagogues on a number of articles (as here, where 2/3 of the !voters have a view that differs from yours). Perhaps taking a closer look at the articles, and the views expressed by the majority in those discussions (whose take differs from yours), will be helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that is helpful to know that you were just talking about the article that discusses planned community service tasks in the local paper. Epeefleche, I will avoid your personal comments, as those are not appropriate to engage in a discussion over, and will instead focus on the content of this article and the content of the source you are citing as the primary example of notability. The Culver article is routine coverage of a local event. It does not establish notability. I had read it before, but assumed that couldn't be the article you are citing as a Pulitzer Prize parallel article. It clearly is just routine non-notable coverage. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep, the Denver Post reported that the synagogue held a service day in 1995 and installed a meditation garden in 2003. Those are the kinds of standard things that local religious organizations do on a routine basis and get reported as "feature stories" (also known as "human interest articles" or "light journalism" -- not to be confused with "featured stories") in local newspapers all over America (or did back when newspapers had reporters on staff). Here are some similar stories I found on the websites of daily newspapers in my area: Local church stages an Easter puppet show, Local church collects shoes for charity, Several local churches support community gardens, and Children sell lemonade to help Joplin earthquake victims. None of these stories makes their topics notable for purposes of an encyclopedia -- this stuff is ubiquitous. --Orlady (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously, we disagree. To me, routine coverage of a local event is "Services at 9 PM; Rabbi Orlady presiding". And to me, the Denver Post is just possibly not a "local paper", given that it has the 15th-largest circulation in the US, and the 9th-largest on Sundays. But I recognize that that is just my opinion. Anyway, I take comfort that at least I'm in accord with the consensus, 2-1 majority view on this matter, of those who have !voted here.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While AfDs are not votes, your math is still quite funny. Four editors (including you) have commented on the Denver Post articles. Two have stated they fall under WP:NOTNEWS and constitute routine coverage not implying notability. Two (one of which is you) have stated that they do. That does not sound like consensus to me at all. While the Denver Post is a large paper, for the subject of this article, and the type of coverage it received, this still appears like a local story about a non-notable routine event. If the Denver Post reported about such activities for a synagogue in another state perhaps it would seem a bit more notable. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My reference it to the 2-1 consensus (6 !voting keep; 3 !voting delete) that the sources that we are considering sufficiently support the fact that the subject of this article is notable. Most of those editors have, wisely, moved on after expressing their view, while I've stayed behind to chat. But I'll move on as well, at this point, as there seems to be little more to say.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep after some thought and research, I feel that it as notable as many other articles about local synagogues and churches. It is certainly better researched than an article about a synagogue where I live, Indianapolis Hebrew Congregation. --rogerd (talk) 22:10, 28 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.