Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Israel Shomrai Emunah

:{{la|Young Israel Shomrai Emunah}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Young Israel Shomrai Emunah}})

Fails WP:GNG with a lack of secondary sources. TM 18:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Article lists two secondary sources and internet searches reveal far more.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

:The article listed two links about the rabbi, not this.--TM 06:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep A reasonable number of sources independent of the subject with non trivial coverage. Passes WP:GNG. Could use some work, though. Sailsbystars (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

:If there is non trivial coverage, please demonstrate it. As for claims of notability, here is the gist of the article. A rabbi established a congregation. It grew and they bought a new building. He died and was replaced by another rabbi. I do not see anything terribly notable in that.--TM 14:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - The sources do in fact demonstrate this topic passes WP:GNG. As to the charge that the coverage is trivial, examples of "trivial" are defined by WP:GNG as a "directory listing" or a "one sentence mention." The coverage, even admitted by the nom in the last response, is far beyond either of those.--Oakshade (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

:I was recapping the text of the article. None of the sources provided give that information. There is no significant coverage of the congregation. All of the coverage shown thus far concerns the rabbi and notability is not inherited. If you have sources which demonstrate in-depth, significant and non-trivial coverage, by all means please show it.--TM 18:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

::I have removed all of the original research and uncited narrative on the page. Of the two "sources", both of which were obituaries for the distinguished rabbi, only one even mention the congregation and that was in reference to the location of his burial. These !votes reek of thinly veiled WP:ILIKEIT's.--TM 03:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Hi TM: Please note, it's a synagogue, there are no Earth-shattering things that go on there, but that does not mean it is not notable, and as such there is sufficient material now in the article to justify it. It is the largest Orthodox synagogue in the area, it's founding and guiding rabbi of 57 years oversaw it's growth and was a notable religious leader (all synagogues are led by rabbis), it is the hub for Orthodox life in the Greater Washington area, it is noted in both the local Jewish press and by important news media, it functions in conjunction with other important Jewish organizations and provides important services and functions to the thousands of Orthodox Jews that surround it. All of this has now been cited and noted in the expanded article and you are therefore kindly requested to withdraw your nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep because the article has been upgraded with 25 WP:RS. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• NOTE: The nominator is kindly requested to withdraw his nomination because the article has now been thoroughly upgraded with all required sources and references as per WP:ORG. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Merge to a one-paragraph mention in National Council of Young Israel#Affiliated synagogues, which is already populated with two other synagogues. The only notable point in the whole article which deserves mention is that it is "the first Orthodox synagogue established in Montgomery County". Otherwise the article seems more like original research and self-promotion than anything. Of course the local newspapers would mention the synagogue, but the only national coverage is by the National Council of Young Israel, of which the synagogue is an affiliate. And some of the references don't even "say" what the article claims, such as the list of synagogues cited to prove that it is "recognized as a key synagogue in the Silver Spring, Maryland area". There are notable, historic synagogues and then there are neighborhood shuls. I am not in favor of giving a page to every synagogue out there. Yoninah (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

:*Yoninah: I disagree with you. Perhaps some synagogue articles lack information but this one now has plenty. In this case it's an independent synagogue, with a strong Haredi involvement that goes beyond the NCYI Modern Orthodox type, as the article conveys. IZAK (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

::Query - Is there a relevant guideline for notability of buildings or churches? Also, a comment - there are more high quality sources available, and I will see about getting them inserted. The sources inserted over night are not of high quality. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

:::These are almost all trivial sources. Izak, if we followed your guide to notability, essentially every church, synagogue, mosque and temple in the world would be notable because they are all "hubs" for some groups religious life. I will not withdraw my nomination and instead I would point that this still fails GNG's 'Significant coverage' barrier. Is there an article specifically about the synagogue in independent media? In my mind, religious buildings and organizations are not inherently notable. If they are listed on the National Register of Historic Places or have had a long history or pass WP:GNG, then I see an argument for notability. However, this synagogue has no significant coverage and stills fails GNG despite the large number of trivial 'sources' provided.--TM 13:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

::::Hi there TM: Um, how can it be "historic" if it's not 100 years old yet? Do only 100 year old buildings get noted and by then they are often empty shells devoid of meaning functioning as museums? So your argument is weak. First of all kindly note that WP:NOTPAPER and there is no limit to what can be included in an encyclopedia with basic referencing. You cannot do better than the citations I added from The Washington Examiner; The Washington Post in at least four different articles, there are more, I stopped searching Google by the 20th page out of over [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=791&bih=425&q=%22Young+Israel+Shomrai+Emunah%22&btnG=Google+Search 21,000 hits for ""Young Israel Shomrai Emunah"], the Washington Jewish Week a few times and these all meet the requirements of WP:NEWSORG @ WP:IRS, as well as other Jewish news outlets, and the additional links are to organizations that validates the extent of the synagogue's serious connections and wide network. Your deprecating comments above would sound absurd if applied to any soccer or sports team article where the central idea is always the same: "A team is put together, they elect a captain, they have a home ground, they kick around some balls, they lose some games and win others, sometimes a trophy. It's always the same. The end." That's what sports looks like to an outsider and it is easy to make light of a house of worship that is notable in its own rights and should be judged on its merits, and in this case there are now more than enough good WP:RS, with some others to back up the information as well, that makes this an informative and encyclopedic article. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

:::::The article demonstrates that YISE performs the basic functions that nearly every religious institution performs across the entire world. It is located in a major metro hub, so ofcourse there is going to be basic, WP:LOCAL coverage. However, it is all WP:TRIVIAL. If you can find sources which actually cover the congregation independently and in-depth, then I will review the nomination but otherwise, the keeps make no reference to the trivial nature of the coverage and your argument is quite weak as well.--TM 04:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

::::::Hi TM, take a look at the disambig page St. Patrick's Cathedral, it's questionable if each and every one of those articles is valid the way you would require it of them (some are just red links asking to be created). Even if there was only one St. Patrick's Cathedral (New York) and one Masjid al-Haram mosque in Mecca, it would be absurd to expect that every mosque, church or synagogue or any kind of religious house of worship needs to exist on that kind of grand scale to deserve a WP article. Unfortunately, most times synagogues become "notable" for tragic reasons such as happened on Kristallnacht when the Nazis burned down over 1,600 synagogues, or when there are random acts of vandalism and arson, but that should not be a reason to wait to make important synagogues subjects of WP articles. You also overlook that America is a young country, and therefore synagogues tend to be new and unfamiliar to outsiders. The fact that major news outlets such as The Washington Post, The Washington Examiner and the Washington Jewish Week who do report on that area where the synagogue is located and that they make frequent ongoing annual references to this synagogue should be good enough for anyone concerned about the requisite WP citations and sources, otherwise it looks like overkill to demand more as if this was "Solomon's Temple." Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Izak, there is no need for bringing up Kristallnacht or other events for seemingly dramatic effect. For the last time, I will restate my argument clearly: YISE is a normal religious institution that does not have a unique history, which is why the only mentions of the synagogue come in passing or in relation to something else notable. Your previous arguments fall under it does no harm, it is valuable, it is prominent in its neighborhood, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and even someone notable worked there. I highly advise you to reread your arguments and compare them to the arguments to avoid at deletion discussions.--TM 15:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

::::::::Hi TM: Just to remind you, synagogues are not "notable" because they appear on a "National Register of Historic Places" which is absurd, their importance comes from their significance to Jews and Judaism, so let's not lose touch with reality just because this is a WP forum. My arguments are sound. The synagogue would be notable just on the grounds of the WP:N of its recently demised longest serving rabbi, who could easily get a WP:BIO of his own and no doubt will, but for now his information bolsters this article. I do not defend the inclusion of articles about every synagogue on WP, but I do take note of those that are very important. It takes some experience to know this, that is why it would have been more helpful had you sought out some input from veteran experienced Judaic editors at WP:JUDAISM first. It is significant (regardless of your continued deprecations) that it's mentioned in mainstream media in whatever way, especially when the synagogue, its founding rabbi and a number of its congregants get cited in major newspapers. It also happens to be it's the most important Orthodox synagogue in the Greater Washington area and is the spiritual home to hundreds of key US government officials, that will get noted. IZAK (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Adequate reliable and verifiable sources about the subject meet the Wikipedia notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. --Yoavd (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

:WP:JUSTAVOTE--TM 15:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - the sources do not appear to be anything more than casual references to local events taking place there. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

: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.