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. The arguments of Shirahadasha have carried the consensus in this discussion. Xoloz (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Toubin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is the third time this page has been created by the same user. The first time it was deleted per an AfD because the subject was considered not notable and of local interest only. The second time the article was speedy deleted for being almost the same as the initial article. The main difference between this version and the last deleted version (and the reason I didn't request a speedy delete) is that the subject has now been profiled in a single newspaper article as being one of the last two members of a local Jewish congregation. I believe this still makes him of local interest only and that the subject does not meet the notability requirements. I've asked the author for more information [1] on why this person is more notable than any other church caretaker but have gotten no response. Karanacs (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator because subject is non-notable. I would prefer the article be prevented from being recreated. Karanacs (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge into B'Nai Abraham Synagogue, Brenham. Karanacs, thanks for not requesting a speedy delete on this article, so that we can atleast discuss if this article merits some sort of future (either via merge or stand alone etc). This might be a developing work in progress, something that may someday have enough sources to stand on its own; currently, I feel it should be merged into the B'Nai Abraham Synagogue, Brenham. ALSO If the article is once again deleted, I am not in favor of preveting it from ever being recreated. Times change. I realize constant "re-creates" tie up editors from other more pressing needs, but it is obvious that this article is somewhat improving over time, and like I said, there may come a time and place where this article might become well sourced enough (and hence notible) to stand on its own.Nsaum75 (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per additional references found in Austin American Statesman recently. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into History of the Jews in Brenham, Texas. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested by Brewcrewer. history is a continual problem here, because such people are notable, but within a very small compass. The article suggested for merging seems able to contain the necessary detail. DGG (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Going to have to say that I don't see the notability in the roles of this individual. Certainly, I appreciate the sources and respect the hard work done here, but the sources have merely verified that the individual has a non-notable role (outside of the local community). Merge to B'Nai Abraham Synagogue, Brenham for me. Pastordavid (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am swayed by Shirahadasha's comments below. Keep. (btw, I receive the Banner-Press myself, and am quite familiar with it). Pastordavid (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to clarify that for this person the the local community paper would be the Brenham Banner while the Austin American Statesman is a large newspaper based in the capital. Thanks. Bhaktivinode (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep the Austin American Statesman's article establishes notability. Jon513 (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Austin Statesman article and PBS documentary show sufficient notability to justify a keep. These reliable sources have, rightly or wrongly, looked to Mr. Toubin as an oral history source to represent and explain an entire largely lost culture. We should rely on their independent judgement and not substitute our own ideas of what makes an individual important. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep see Shirahadasha above. Culturalrevival (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notability established per Shirahadasha. --MPerel 21:15, 20 December 2007 (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.