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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond J. Safra Synagogue (Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable congregation; building is non-historical, sourcing is largely confirmation of routine happenings. Oaktree b (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I created this because one of the other two synagogues in Brooklyn were founded in memory of the same person and part of Brooklyn's larger Aleppan community who also founded the famous Shaare Zion on Ocean Parkway. But then again notability is not inherited so this could go either way. NYC Guru (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Judaism, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the only source in the article is to the synagogue's own website. Appears to fail WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think. Here is a half-page feature in the Miami Herald, here is a book with about 40 words on point but lots of helpful context, here is a South Florida Sun Sentinel article with about a paragraph on point. I wouldn't call this an abundance of source material, but these all appear to be reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and to provide sufficient information on the article subject that no original research is required to extract the content, so it seems to me that the GNG is met. -- Visviva (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The half-page feature is okay, but I don't think the other two get over the GNG line. If there's anything else out there I'd be persuaded to change my !vote, but right now it just looks like an article on a local place of worship. SportingFlyer T·C 14:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Stalemate over whether GNG is met with sources available.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but add references as there seem to be plenty of references, there just not added to the article El Wikipedian (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK – The Grid (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

agree. the page should stay but they it needs to be significantly improved. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment following relist: there seems to be a sticking point here, as in other discussions, over whether WP:SIGCOV should be interpreted subjectively (coverage that we would personally call significant) or objectively as provided in the actual guideline (coverage that addresses the article subject directly enough that no original research is needed to extract the content). While recognizing that all rules including this one should be interpreted flexibly in the service of our encyclopedic purpose, I don't think that a subjective definition of sigcov is reasonable in view of the guideline text. You can certainly make the argument that we should ignore a source that doesn't meet some particular personal threshold of significance, but IMO such arguments should not be presented as SIGCOV-based. -- Visviva (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Under your definition, two paragraphs of coverage would make something "significant." It's always subjective, otherwise we'd just all fall in line here at AfD, and considering the sources currently available are a local news feature article, a very brief mention in a book, and a paragraph in an article about a family, it doesn't matter that there may be enough information for a blurb - it simply has not been covered significantly by secondary sources. SportingFlyer T·C 14:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the point is that there is a rough consensus on what it means for coverage to be significant, or at least on a test for significance. If the sources pass that test, it's significant coverage, even if there's not a lot of material to write an article from. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The newspaper sources identified are sufficient to establish notability. gidonb (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree that the sources we have pass WP:GNG. There's certainly not a lot of material, but significance of coverage is roughly defined in WP:SIGCOV, and by that definition, it's enough. Just barely, but enough. In this kind of super-borderline case, I think an argument from WP:NEXIST is also reasonable; I'm sure there's something on this synagogue that we haven't found, and that something may be enough to put it over the line if you think what we do have here does not suffice. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2023 (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.