Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kol Ami of Frederick
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. I'm not sure I agree, but that is irrelevant, because the consensus after two weeks is clearly to keep. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kol Ami of Frederick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Individual synagogue/congregation with, as far as I can tell, no indication of notability per WP:ORG. I speedied this per category a7, but another user has asked for a full discussion at AFD. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ORG. This is just one of hundreds (thousands?) of Reform temples across America. According to this page, its only real claim to fame is having received a Torah scroll rescued from the Holocaust, which is not enough to justify this article's existence per WP:EVENT. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Please note that I have added sources to it. The sources cover more than one event in different years, and there are multiple sources for each event. I do not see "hundreds" or "thousands" of something as being a reason for deletion. Xyz7890 (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The point about there being thousands of other congregations is that most of them aren't notable. This congregation (which doesn't even have its own building) hasn't done anything that makes it notable -- the events described in the article, even though sourced to local news coverage, just aren't anything that is particularly different from the things that every congregation does. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The general notability guideline 1.) does not require the subject to be different from any others of its type out there, 2.) This discussion is not about other congregations or how many there are. It is about this one. and 3.) does not require the subject to have its own building. If you can make that out from the sources, that only helps toward establishing notability. Xyz7890 (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The very low standard you set would make almost every religious congregation notable, since all get local coverage of their activities, In fact most articles about individual religious congregations at AFD have been deleted. Edison (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The general notability guideline 1.) does not require the subject to be different from any others of its type out there, 2.) This discussion is not about other congregations or how many there are. It is about this one. and 3.) does not require the subject to have its own building. If you can make that out from the sources, that only helps toward establishing notability. Xyz7890 (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The point about there being thousands of other congregations is that most of them aren't notable. This congregation (which doesn't even have its own building) hasn't done anything that makes it notable -- the events described in the article, even though sourced to local news coverage, just aren't anything that is particularly different from the things that every congregation does. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Both the previous sources and the ones recently added seem to be plenty enough to establish notability. Dew Kane (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Dew Kane. Culturalrevival (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Small and non-notable religious congregation fails WP:ORG. Having routine coverage of happenings, such as this one and every other one have, does not make every religious congregation notable. Edison (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep looking at the sources, they appear to provide a history of the congregation and other information you would expect to find in an encyclopedia article. Most of the sources are strictly about the subject, and not something else that trivially mentions them in passing. And the sources are distinct from one another, and written on different dates in different years. Nearly 100% of the information in the article is fully sourced from several good sources that are independent from the subject, and the article needs only minimal cleanup. Sebwite (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is well-sourced and useful. I think that as long as the congregations have enough press coverage to be well-sourced from independent, reliable sources, this and other articles on congregations of whatever faith are useful additions to Wikipedia.OldShul (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2010 (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.