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. — Cirt (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agudas Achim Congregation (Alexandria, Virginia)[edit]

Agudas Achim Congregation (Alexandria, 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)

Delete Non-notable religious organization. Not demonstration of notability. The congregation is not notable due to having a notable rabbi as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Basket of Puppies 17:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Withdraw vote, the article is better sourced and I'm not feeling certain on notability standards for churches and similar institutions.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:23, 26 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]

• Keep. 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) 23:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Large number of synagogue article deletion proposals. IZAK (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability not inherited? What if president Lyndon B. Johnson speaks at the opening ceremony? Drmies (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to say. I glanced over the article on their rebbe, and it looks like he is notable for political involvement rather than congregational work, which tends to say something, but I won't go there. But it doesn't tend to lend notability to the temple. Not to tax this issue overmuch, but the best solution would probably be to bulletproof this article to find more sources. Surely local papers would have covered the institution.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What?! Lyndon B. Johnson bought a hot dog at Jimmy's diner. Yipee! Chesdovi (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a. can you verify that? b. it's not the same thing... Drmies (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per IZAK...Modernist (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I added a few referenced factoids about the synagogue, but nothing adds up to real notability. The rabbi of the synagogue, Jack Moline, is notable and has a Wikipedia page to prove it. Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change !vote to Keep. Epeefleche has done a tremendous job adding valid references and text to more than prove notability. Yoninah (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm throwing my weight behind Yoninah on this one. Chesdovi (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Yoninah is !voting keep, does that mean that you now are doing so as well then?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability is inherited.[24] Rabbi Jack Moline and former member Rahm Emanuel brought such a spotlight [25] to this congregation that it became notable. Lots of churches and synagogues serve as polling stations, but reporters don't just go to random places to interview the voters standing in line, they pick places with a public image [26] and when they want comments form congregants on days with special meaning, they go to high-profile congregations [27] . this is a very high profile congregation.PA6-5000 (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is the Rabbi notable? Yes. Is there a notable member, Rahm Emanuel? Yes. Does that make the synagogue notable? No. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Searching for sources on this synagogue without Moline or Emanuel in the content turns up stories on Agudas Achim in Hartford instead. There do not appear to be reliable sources establishing notability of this Agudas Achim. This appears to be a run of the mill Synagogue that fails to have any specific notability per WP:NONPROFIT or WP:GNG. It makes no claims of notability in the article itself other than having a famous rabbi or a famous congregant. I also tried to find any evidence of it being a nationally famous local organization, but failed to. I have also found no evidence of particularly unique longevity, size of membership, major achievements, or prominent scandals. In terms of GNG, I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage for any general factors either.ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete Seems to not quite meet notability standards. Willing to change my mind if more sources are presented, but right now, I don't see it. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Changed to keep There are now sufficient sources. Notability has been demonstrated. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I haven't finished culling through the ghits, but my attention so far was grabbed by the fact that this is a 97-year old congregation, whose 90th anniversary was lauded in Congress. That does seem to bring it into a different category than, say, Jimmy's Diner ... --Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congressmen often put notices about Little League teams in the school papercongressional record. It's not unusual.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The main focus of my point was that the congregation is 97 years old, which had not been recognized in the article previously and so may have been missed by some commenters. As Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) states: "Non-commercial organizations ... Additional considerations are: ... Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity ... should be considered to the extent ... reported by independent sources." But yes, I was also looking at the fact that it was lauded in Congress for that as supportive of the fact and its notability, both. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While I still haven't read all of the RS refs on this synagogue, I've seen enough (and added enough to the article), to reflect substantial RS coverage of this 97-year-old congregation, over the decades, sufficient to confer notability on it for wp purposes. I understand from nom's statements elsewhere that these recent nominations were done without a wp:before search, and understand how if one failed to look beyond the article itself in its earlier state, one may have missed indicia of its notability. I'm encouraged by nom's statement elsewhere that he will conduct such a search in the future, as it will no doubt decrease the number of his nominations that are not successful, and free the community up to engage in other, productive activities.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep [sorry, mis-typed] Wide range of reliable sources; significant coverage; looks good to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 09:48, 26 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.