Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sim Shalom Synagogue

Add links
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 redirect to Steven Blane. At some point, the discussion went overheated, the article was severely rewritten after the nomination, and some users changed their votes. However, as I read it, everybody agrees that if one removes all material strictly about Steven Blane, the remaining sources are not sufficient to establish the notability of the website. We thus have a choice between delete, merge, and redirect. I have chosen redirect, which leaves the page history intact, and there is no prejudice about merge: Whoever wants to take the existing material and move it to the article on Steven Blane is welcome to do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sim Shalom Synagogue[edit]

Sim Shalom Synagogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website with a couple of mentions in weekly local newspaper. Created by a PR agent, prod removed by an editor with a username that suggests they are the person running this entity. Number 57 19:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I went through the article to remove blatant advertising, remove unsourced statements, and format refs. I found a more national ref on PR Newswire, but more refs are needed to meet GNG. Yoninah (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge and Redirect to the new Steven Blane (rabbi) article to avoid WP:CONTENTFORKING per agreement with User Yoninah (talk · contribs) [also, retaining the following and other comments since all the material has now been kept and merged and redirected into the new Steven Blane (rabbi) article] because, especially WP should recognize the power of the web. This is a WP:N subject, regardless of its affiliation, this is not just "the wave of the future" it is the future and it is now. A careful reading shows that this is a serious effort with multiple domains [1] [2] [3] [4] creating a cyber/virtual synagogue as well as a seminary to train its rabbis, something to be expected in this day and age. I have wikified the article and added more links to give it better context. Kindly please practice Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. In addition it is always wise in such situations not to rush to judgement and take to heart WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not exactly sure how I bit the newcomers? G2003 has been editing for almost a year, and produces a steady stream of advertisement-type articles (I strongly suspect he is a paid editor). I also removed a large part of your addition to the article, as it made no reference to the subject whatsoever (I'm rather concerned that as an experienced editor, you think that a section entitled "Introduction: E-learning" is appropriate). Number 57 09:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Number 57: Thank you for your observations. You may be right that G2003 may be a paid agent, but you know what, who cares, if he creates useful new information the WP community at large and experienced editors will decide what to keep and what to throw out. At any rate G2003 does a lousy job at formatting new articles so he must be a big newbie and thus must be accorded courtesies for that. WP welcomes contributions from the universe. Many articles start out as POV pieces and then are re-written and improved to comply with WP policies. As for the sections you object to, I appreciate your comments, but in trying to improve an article, one has to find corroborating information and I try to do that first from WP itself. I will look at anything if it can help. Feel free to object. Right now I have spent time adding WP:NPOV additional WP:RS and I think that the article should stay. This is an important development, bigger than this single synagogue even. There are other efforts of this nature and they need to be noted especially in a cyber-encyclopedia like WP. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not see why people who have been editing since 2010 (just checked his edit history) should be treated as newbies. If you can't learn how to write an article properly, especially if you're being paid to do so, then what should be expected?
        • You have enlarged the article, but the number of references about the subject (the Sim Shalom Synagogue) has remained at two local newspapers and several self-references, so I still do not see that it is notable. The rabbi running it has a few passing mentions in national newspapers, which just state that he runs the synagogue, so not the significant coverage required by the WP:GNG. Perhaps an article about him would be more likely to be worthwhile, but I'm not sure. Number 57 12:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with Number 57. You would think that an online synagogue that has been around since 2011 would have more online references. I also don't understand all the entries IZAK added in the See Also section, which are mostly Orthodox websites and whose inclusion suggests some kind of connection between this Universalist online synagogue and Orthodox Jewish outreach programming. Yoninah (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yoninah: Thank you for proving my WP:NPOV bona fides! It is VERY obvious that Blane and the Sim Shalom Synagogue are very much NOT Orthodox, in fact they are the opposite of that. However, WP does not limit itself by creating articles by one ideology alone or by one faith only, as you know many Jewish-content articles have much alien stuff inserted into them because this is WP. On the technical side there are direct parallels between the online work Blane is doing with the kind of stuff that other Orthodox outfits are doing. It is similar work, not "co-operative" work nor is it meant to "deceive" anyone as you imply. Please apologize, I am working as a WP editor not as an advocate for any one POV. That's all. That is why "See alsos" exist in order to show a similar and related in some way, but not "exact" examples that a reader may be interested in. IZAK (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week keep. I think the cited Forward article is more than trivial local coverage[5], and another article was picked up by JTA and distributed more widely[6]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After the recent edits to remove advertising, the article still seems beefy enough to pass the general notability guideline. The nature of the subject (in this case, an online religious cyberservice) shouldn't really come into play; there is enough coverage for the subject for GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you advise where exactly this coverage is? None of the references added to the article since I nominated it are about the subject - most are about the rabbi running it. Number 57 11:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, and I am corrected. I would like to withdraw my vote for keep. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57: You are being far too strident in your attempts to wipe out this article. You state, for example, "None of the references added to the article since I nominated it are about the subject - most are about the rabbi running it." Which is incredible, because almost all articles about synagogues have sections about their rabbis, particularly if he/she is the founding rabbi and is very much still actively involved with it. Rabbis are noted in Jewish media far more often than their synagogues. A synagogue without a rabbi is like a carriage without a horse or a monarchy without a monarch (be they good or bad, whether you like or dislike them, is immaterial.) This is an old discussion. A synagogue does not need "notoriety" or "mega-coverage" to be notable or to have a WP article about it, because after all, a synagogue is, well, just a synagogue, where Jews come to pray and follow/hear the rabbi, period, and there are hundreds if not thousands in Category:Synagogues, so that if anything this is a WP:N synagogue because it utilizes the modern Internet and up to date technology to achieve its aims, something that Wikipedians of all people should appreciate. Why that bothers you so is more of a question. IZAK (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What bothers me is that this synagogue does not appear to be notable as there is almost no third party coverage of it. What Wikipedians should appreciate is 100% irrelevant. Number 57 08:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources cited for a virtual synagogue establish the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Alansohn and IZAK. -- Olve Utne (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Change vote to “Redirect to Steven Blane (rabbi)”. The contents are better maintained in one common article, now that that one has been improved. -- Olve Utne (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to keep badgering people, but I'm still at a loss to exactly why what policies are being followed here? Where is the coverage required to meet WP:GNG? Number 57 09:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Number 57: This is a subtle but serious point that you are missing, once there was user Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) who had noted [7] in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Dov Keller that: "...Religious sources and media of notable religious organizations are perfectly acceptable reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here. There is no problem I can see that can justify a delete vote..." and the same applies here since after all this has been tagged as both a {{Synagogue-stub}} and {{Internet-stub}} with some good WP:RS now added and that naturally also requires more time than the "executioner's block treatment" you are subjecting this intriguingly encyclopedic topic to. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure what Wikipedia guideline or policy that opinion from an AfD in 2007 follows, but even so, back to my original question, where are the sources to prove this "notability in the field"? Number 57 10:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Number57. Has anyone who voted !Keep taken a look at what the sources are talking about? Aside from the 4 citations from the Sim Shalom website, here’s what the other sources have to say:
    • The Jewish Standard article in Footnote 1 concerns the Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute; it has a one-line mention of the Sim Shalom synagogue: "Blane also is the spiritual leader of Sim Shalom, an online synagogue that broadcasts weekly services to congregants who log on from around the world." The Jewish Standard article in Footnote 8 doesn't mention the synagogue at all.
    • The Intact News article is about circumcision, and simply names Rabbi Blane as "Rabbi of Congregation Havurah Sim Shalom, and Dean of the Jewish Spiritual Leader's Institute".
    • The Forward article in Footnote 9 is about the Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute; it doesn't mention the Sim Shalom Synagogue at all.
    • The Ynetnews article in Footnote 10 is about the Jewish Spiritual leaders Institute; it has a one-line mention of the Sim Shalom Synagogue: "He now trains rabbis and runs an online synagogue, Sim Shalom, which holds services for a global congregation every week."
    • The Al Arabiya article in Footnote 11 has the same subject as the Ynetnews article, and uses the same one-liner about the Sim Shalom Synagogue.
    • The New York Times articles in Footnotes 12 & 13 are social announcements about Rabbi Blane officiating at weddings. No mention of Sim Shalom Synagogue.
    • IMO, all these refs should be used to beef up the Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute page, and let this one be deleted until real sources can be found. Yoninah (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah: Firstly, the sources cited are all sufficient for what is after all a STUB of this level since most stubs do not even have any of this. Secondly, all you say proves that Rabbi Steven Blane has conducted fascinating and notable activities. Personally I do not agree with his ideology, but so what that is not the point! because even if one disagrees with his views the man is doing cutting-edge stuff that is being reported in media that you are far too dismissive of. Thirdly, you are contradicting yourself since what you say amounts to proposing that Sim Shalom Synagogue and Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute should be merged and redirected into one Rabbi Steven Blane article (something I would not object to should that happen as I have mentioned earlier) that would/should/could have a valid section dedicated to the Sim Shalom Synagogue he founded as well as the Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute he founded and runs, but let's see how this AfD runs its course. Fourthly, you must make up your mind which it will be and quit displaying a very evident violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is understandable since this type of non-Orthodox outfit runs against your sensibilities and I fully sympathize but WP is not an Orthodox synagogue it is just, well, a WP:NPOV encyclopedia or should try to be. Fifthly, even though I do greatly sympathize with you I do think that you are acting as a POV warrior without realizing it perhaps, and need to consider WP:SPIDERMAN since by going to such extreme lengths to banish this topic you cannot simply "wish it away" simply because it is distasteful to you. IZAK (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - At issue here is notability. The sourcing is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whpq: I beg to differ with you. Could you please point to the exact WP guidelines of what makes a synagogue or a website notable? especially a cross between a synagogue and an inter-active website as in this case. The sources cited are more than sufficient for this level WP:STUB, could you also cite the WP policy guidelines of what makes a stub notable or not and just how many citations are required of a stub to be given time to be improved. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Whoa. I cannot believe that you (IZAK) are accusing me of such nefarious motives. I'm fully aware that Wikipedia is a forum for all points of view. I wouldn't have spent time searching for more sources and cleaning up the page if the subject was distasteful to me. But the issue here is notability. I took extra time to list all the references to show that the sources are completely insignificant. I think it would be a wonderful idea to write Stephen Blane or expand Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute rather than continue to beat the dead horse of Sim Shalom Synagogue. Yoninah (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • So why don't you then suggest a merge and redirect? (which you didn't), rather than trimming down the article and when I finally cite the sources. There is no need for sources to be "elaborate" it's enough that they come from respectable publications even they are one-liners they are good enough since there is no WP policy that source need to be treatises. Maybe since you are now into cherry picking this and that, this article should be left and maybe merge everything else into here. It is you that is making a mountain out of a molehill. IZAK (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Want to start merging all three topics into Steven Blane? be my guest. It would reduce problems with WP:CONTENTFORKING. I have no objection to merging all three topics into one as long as all the cited material stays. IZAK (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course all the citations you found will stay – they're all about Stephen Blane and the JSLI. I'm not sure if I can do this by tomorrow, though, so I'll copy the refs into a document and work on it later. Yoninah (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jolly good, I am on board with you on that! Thanks, IZAK (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - The exact guideline that makes a synagogue notable is Wikipedia:Notability, and the oen for wbesites is WP:WEB. The Sim Shalom Synagogue fails to meet either and accusing others of bad faith doesn't change that. -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wphq, kindly do not speak in meaningless generalities, please cite exact policies, anyone can cite huge policies that do not effect the initial creation of articles that start out as small stubs. Thanks, IZAK (talk)

          • Reply - If you are looking for a specific guideline that covers synagogues, then there isn't one. So the general guideline applies. And that applies to stubs as well. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Much of the sources in ther article are there to provide sourcing for statements about the rabbi, Steven Blane, and make no mention Sim Shalom Synagogue. What coverage there is that does include Sim Shalom Synagogue is either not reliable, independent, or significant. After reviewing the sources in the article, I concur with Yoninah's analysis above. Furthermore, my own searches find no significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Steven Blane (rabbi) as the article has been created since the AFD started and he appears to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps it has improved since it was first posted here, but looking at the article now and its refs and those indicated above it has sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As discussed above, none of the sources added to the articles since it was nominated are actually about the subject (i.e. the synagogue itself). Could you advise which references help it pass WP:GNG? Number 57 08:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Yoninah for all your hard work. I have struck my "Keep" vote and changed it to Merge and Redirect to the more sensible repository within the new Steven Blane (rabbi) article to avoid WP:CONTENTFORKING per agreement with User Yoninah (talk · contribs) also, retaining my other comments since all the material has now been kept and merged and redirected into the new Steven Blane (rabbi) article. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but merge is fine as well, per WP:CON. --Shuki (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Why keep? And if a merge, what do you feel is mergeable? -- Whpq (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article's subject does not meet WP:GNG; can't support a merge to Steven Blane because I don't think that article's subject meets WP:BASIC. Miniapolis 21:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about Steven Blane does not meet BASIC? The article cites "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Steven Blane is not the subject of this discussion; Sim Shalom Synagogue is. Since you asked, though, WP:BASIC states that an article's subject must be the subject of "multiple published secondary sources...", etc.; only one of the references in his article (the first Jewish Standard citation) meets that criterion. Miniapolis 01:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The rabbi and the online synagogue are related. A degree of notability is found for both. Policy should only serve as a guideline. If the Sim Shalom online Synagogue should fail to garner sufficient support in reliable sources—should it be deleted? Its first sentence reads: "Sim Shalom Online Synagogue is an interactive online Jewish Universalist cyber-synagogue that offers weekly synagogue services to an international community via computer hookups and participation." My gut reaction is that if that is an accurate description of the subject of the article, it should not be deleted. We know that real houses of worship are interactive. But is it possible that there could really be a "Jewish Universalist cyber-synagogue"? I would recommend against deletion because the topic is interesting. There is also a modicum of support in sources. Perhaps not enough when strictly applying policy, but the topic is sufficiently captivating that I would not want to simply lose what information we have at present in this article. Bus stop (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're basically saying that if we apply policies, then it should be deleted? Number 57 09:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course not. We are not a bureaucracy. This is not a project strictly bound by rules. You are certainly justified in invoking policy for its salutary effects, but I cannot agree that policy indicates that we should delete this article. Policy would certainly be applicable peripherally to all other aspects of the writing of this article. But I don't think policy should be invoked to the strictest of extents and senses to result in the deletion of the article. My reasoning leads me to believe that the interests of the reader as well as the project would be best served by Keeping the article. This is hardly frivolous or flippant material. It is serious material, worthy of further consideration, and some sources provide a degree of support. Bus stop (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, did you read my synopsis of the sources, above? The sentence that you like in Sim Shalom Synagogue is mentioned in only 3 of the 13 sources, and no other coverage of the synagogue is available. The rest of the article is patched-together WP:SYNTH. Are you suggesting that we pare the article down to that one, verified sentence, because it's "interesting"? Yoninah (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please be specific—where do you see an example of WP:SYNTH in the Sim Shalom Synagogue article? Maybe you are correct, but I haven't found it yet. Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Steven Blane, an acceptable compromise. Blane does appear to be notable and all sources mentioning this subject revolve around him. J04n(talk page) 20:39, 19 April 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sim_Shalom_Synagogue&oldid=1112694762"