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. Though there was a small majority of keepers, I find the deleters arguments to be stronger. 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 many editors to judge that WP:GNG has been met. It could be argued that this is a form of synthesis. Though there is a school of thought that this is what the notability guidelines should say, it is not what they currently say, and this is not the place to change them. Having said that, it is not my role to substitute my judgement for that of the community nor to cast a supervote. Hence I regard 'no consensus' as a fair summary of the discussion. TerriersFan (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Sinai (Portsmouth, Virginia)[edit]

Temple Sinai (Portsmouth, Virginia) (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. Basket of Puppies 08:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tinton, please clarify your claim "made by user Jayjg". None of them were created by Jayjg? Chesdovi (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes some of them were. In my opinion, you are attacking us Jewish editors, by nominating multiple articles for deletion that deal with synagogues, which are well sourced of that matter. Tinton5 (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the pages nominated have not been created by Jayjg. Chesdovi (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you are attacking us Jewish editors Are you being serious? Basket of Puppies 18:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tinton, please don't personalize things. There's no evidence that Basket has intention to "attack" any editors of any group. Nominating a large number of articles in a single subject, while potentially disruptive, does not mean one somehow dislikes or wants to attack people in that group. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore his comment Basket of Puppies. Tinton is a sensitive soul. He is fustrated, that's all. Chesdovi (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To basket: Very serious. To Josh: You don't know the half of it. Out of nowhere, ( I won't mention any names), but some users have been marking several pages for deletion, even though these pages have been up for months and years. And to Cesdovi: User:Jayg did in fact create these pages, not this one however. Just look at the bottom User talk:Jayjg. Notice the five synagogues he created and click on those, then check the page's edit history. Scroll down and the first name you will see is User:Jayjg, from 2008. Freakin 2008. And all of a sudden in 2011 there are deletion notices on several synagogues, which will soon evaporate as soon as other willing editors, like myself will help save these pages, by adding sources and establishing notability, which we have been doing all along. By the way, I was frustrated, not anymore, since we will be able to keep a majority of these pages on here. Tinton5 (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I thought you were referring to the 5 currently at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. As far as I can recall, many of Jayjg's first such articles were also nominated for deletion. He spent much, much hard work and laborious hours to save them all! Chesdovi (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tinton, this is an extremely serious accusation. You have clearly stated that I am editing against a class or group of people, in this case Jews. I will open a discussion at the appropriate administrative noticeboard in order to obtain administrative intervention. Basket of Puppies 18:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you gotta do. Also, your nominations for deletion have been declined by JoshuaZ for User:Jayjg's five pages. That's proof right there. You had no reason to hinder the editing process. Tinton5 (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That mis-states what Kenatipo said, I believe.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:05, 27 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.
Category