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, let's not spend any more time on this one. Courcelles 21:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Israel Congregation (Beaufort, South Carolina)[edit]

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

Non-notable religious organization. Fails notability criteria. Basket of Puppies 18:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per presence in sources such as [1] and [2] and [3] and [4] and [5] and [6] and the nominator should really spend some time following WP:BEFORE – it took me about five minutes to find this lot. ╟─Treasury Tag►Alþingi─╢ 18:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale is WP:BUILDER. The congregation may possibly be notable at some point, but I don't really know. All I know if that it perfectly fits the description at BUILDER and is not ripe for the Wiki. Basket of Puppies 18:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're both clear, what's the problem with [7] and [8] and [9] and [10] and [11] and [12] – ? ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 18:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Historic wooden synagogue building, lots of reliable sources. This does not appear to be a well-researched AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your rationale, but sadly this doesn't meet any of the speedy keep criteria. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 19:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—a synagogue that's over 100 years old that has been operating consistently seems inherently notable to me, even without the other claims to notability. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll see your WP:BUILDER and raise you a WP:INSPECTOR. The article could use better sourcing (many of which were provided above by TreasuryTag), but its subject does have historical significance, especially as it pertains to the historical presence of a Jewish congregation in the predominantly Christian American South. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 19:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources to establish notability (including the material from the Goldring / Woldenberg Institute of Southern Jewish Life that was already listed in this article as an external link.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted above there are many reliable and verifiable sources available about this historic congregation, in addition to the several sources establishing notability that have already been added. Alansohn (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hundred-year-old, wooden synagogue building. Sounds notable. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:15, 22 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.