Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuban Hebrew Congregation

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. It's snowing. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban Hebrew Congregation

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

Non-notable religious organization. Not demonstration of notability. Basket of Puppies 17:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I haven't taken a look at the articles because they are behind a paywall, but there are apparently around 40 articles in The Miami Herald mentioning this congregation since 2003. There are likely many other sources if one looks at other newspapers or looks further back in time. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous nomination—the article is so blatantly covered in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject that I am actually beginning to question the good faith of Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs) – how could they possible have done even the most basic Google Books/News search and not immediately found the heaps of coverage that I did? ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 19:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a single image caption isn't exactly in-depth coverage.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK; I unreservedly apologise that, in my sixty-second foray into researching this topic, one of the several references which immediately caught my eye didn't meet your standards. Well done for tracking my edits here, though. ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 19:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether to say that that was a funny response, or to trout you instead.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. What TT said--pace Sarek: at least two of the hist listed by TT are big enough. TT, please leave off the personals--I'm not tracking you either, I saw this on ANI. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I never suspected you of following me! ╟─Treasury Tag►tortfeasor─╢ 19:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Dozens of sources at Google Books. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep More than enough sources, dead tree sources no less according to Google Books. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, lots of reliable sources write about this synagogue. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly coverage is sufficient. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)
Snow Keep. Per all the above. It appears that nom either: a) is failing to perform the wp:before search that he is required to perform before bringing such nominations, or b) fails to understand the concept of notability in the wp world. It may be that he would be well served by taking a break from such clearly improper nominations until he better understands, and accepts, the two concepts. Failure by him to do so could, perhaps, suggest something short of good faith in his nominations.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. 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: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], plus requesting speedy deletion of many others: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] (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) 22:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Large number of synagogue article deletion proposals. IZAK (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For all the reasons mentioned above. Furthermore, surely any Jewish congregation today on the island of Cuba is notable. Davshul (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification I nominated this based upon WP:BUILDER. The article is as barebones as possible and it is entirely unencyclopedic in it's current state. Basket of Puppies 13:14, 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.