Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Freda

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 Keep--JForget 00:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temple Freda

Temple Freda (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested PROD. This article lacks discernible notability. I attempted to help the creator improve article (see User_talk:Collectonian and User_talk:Bhaktivinode). However, there are no real verifiable sources available regarding this building. The creator added a bunch of "references" however they do not meet WP:VERIFY guidelines at all and many only mention Temple Freda in passing (if at all). If one were to remove the false references, there would be very little left. Almost no information can actually be provided about this place. The creator also seemed to agree that there is little else to say about it. Collectonian 03:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep This article's notablility has been proven by the content of the numerous references cited. Bhaktivinode 03:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nominator. A simple Yahoo search for Temple Freda Bryan Texas brings up a whopping 45 results, most of which are directories listing houses of worship or simple lists of places in the historical registry. There are no 3rd party sources that do more than list the Temple's name and sometimes address. The article asserts it was important to Texas history, but no sources support this other than it being on the historical registry. Allowing this listing in would seem to set a precedence, to me, that any and every local house of worship should be listed on Wikipedia irregardless of the availability of real sources or notability. Collectonian 05:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • no sources support this other than it being on the historical registry - If the HRHP was the only source, it would be notable. See below. --Oakshade 05:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It is listed at Registered_Historic_Places_in_Texas,_Counties_A-C; should articles be created for every site listed there, even if the only information about them is "was named after a woman, its located here, and its on the list")? This particular place is not even notible enough to be in the The Handbook of Texas Online, which is done by the Texas State Historical Association and lists a lot of places of minor importance to history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collectonian (talk • contribs) 05:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Not only does everything listed there worthy of an article (see my vote below as to why), there's a Wikipedia project dedicated to that purpose; Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. I don't know what school of encyclopedic writing you subscribe to ("was named after a woman, its located here, and its on the list"), but the history, architectural design and uniqueness in themselves are aspects that can provide plenty of content written about these places. I created the article San Bernardino (Amtrak station) because I was inspired to do so by its NRHP listing. Sure, I could've written "It has trains and it's on a list," but most editors write beyond 3rd grade English and obviously some research as to why it was considered historic needed to be done and it was eventually written with that information (feel free to attempt an AfD there for the same reasons that inspired this one). I'm sure there are locations in that handbook you mention which aren't on the NRHP registry. --Oakshade 05:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no need to attempt to insult my encyclopedic writing ability. That was my basic summation of this particular article, which is abut all it has to say on Temple Freda. By all means, those places on the registry that actually have extensive info available should be articles, but I think that if we just make a bunch of 3-5 sentence articles about every last one, it is kinda pointless, particularly when there are almost no verifiable resources about it. It doesn't really tell anyone anything more than the historical registry itself does, which makes it little more than another directory listing.

    Anyway, if the consesus remains to is keep, I hope someone will at least clean up the writing and sourcing. I fixed some references, but that's about all the attention I intend to give it. Maybe someone actually has copies of the two documents that appear to have some info about the place and could at least add more than five sentences to the article (new info box not withstanding; and counting the last two which should really just be a list of resources). Collectonian 07:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you sure there are "no verifiable resources about it"? Have you checked the Bryan, Texas library? How about the nearby Texas A&M Library? I'd bet my house that the NHRP researchers did. (By the way, how do you come to the conclusion that the Brazos Heritage Society, the non-fiction history book Before Temple Freda: Jewish residents of Brazos County, Texas, 1865-1913, the International Survey of Jewish Monuments or the University of Texas Center for American History are unreliable sources?). If an article on a notable topic starts with only a few verified sentences, that's what stub notices are for. Wikipedia is a never ending process with only so many editors and it takes time, sometime a lot of it, for articles to grow. It's historic topics like this that make Wikipeida stronger, not weaker. --Oakshade 08:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, yes, I checked both. I live here. Did you actually look at the pages of those references? They mention Temple Freda mostly in passing, and most just confirm that it is on the historic registry. The NRHP listing was enough for that. The Before Freda book is carried by the A&M Library, but I'm not going to go hunt it down the only copy to read to see how it mentions Temple Freda beyond the title (and, presumably at the end since it is a history of Jewish residents in the Brazos Valley BEFORE the temple was built, not about the temple itself). The ISJM listing notes that the building is not in use and in poor condition. The UTC listing is only to note the other book (which even A&M's extensive library has no copies of).
  • You mean since this article was created yesterday, you've actually gone to both libraries, checked out every book about the history of Bryan, the Brazos Valley, Jewish history in the South and Texas, not to mention every book on Texas architectural history, read every chapter of every book and confirmed there isn't anything more than a paragraph on this registered historic building? Heck, even when I was a researcher for a local news station, we wouldn't go that all out (I am envious of the apparent free time you have). And when you write the sources "aren't reliable", you still haven't demonstrated why they don't have credibility to confirm the content of each sentence that's referenced to them. I guess what you mean is you feel they don't have "in depth" coverage for WP:N inclusion standards. I would simply refer to my keep vote in response to that. And the Before Freda book, which you admit you haven't read, apparently covers Jewish history in Bryan up to 1913 and this building was built in 1912. Are you sure there's no in depth coverage about the building in there or is that just guessing? --Oakshade 15:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If you're gonna be snarky and sarcastic, there is no point in having a discussion. I saw the article, I reviewed the WP:N guidelines, I searched myself for more info and felt the topic was not notable. The article's creator even questioned its notability. So I nominated it for deletion. I still feel the article doesn't have that many good sources that actually provide useful information for the article (and some seem to bored on OR since they draw conclusions based on a one line statement. But others disagree, so *shrug* I have other things to worry about. Though since when a Geocities site is considered a reliable, credible source, I don't know. Anyway, I'm done with this discussion. The consensus so far is keep, so keep it and stick a clean up, copyedit, and maybe an expert needed tag. Hope someone fixes it up way better than it is now. Collectonian 16:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - The National Register of Historic Places has much higher inclusion criteria standards than Wikipedia does and everything they consider is heavily researched and analyzed; no simple g-news searches, linking an AP article and calling it a day for them. If it's listed there, it's very notable here.--Oakshade 05:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (vote changed to "Speedy Keep" as the nom so far is the only delete voter.)--Oakshade 05:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Oakshade. Maxamegalon2000 06:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per Oakshade. Also this source[1] Lone Stars of David: The Jews of Texas By Hollace Ava Weiner, Kenneth Roseman might be useful M0RD00R 08:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Oakshade. Isn't one of the reasons FOR Wikipedia, to share and preserve knowledge and help people learn? In addition, food for thought: members of a minority race, religion or culture are often overlooked by society as a whole. It is even more evident when taking into account the location of person/thing in question. Judaism and Jewish Temples in the US have generally taken a quiet behind the scenes approach to many things and issues in their respective community - this was especially true in the past in areas where they might not be as openly accepted. They were by no means an inactive force in the community, but rather they did not openly promote the actions and deeds they were performing. Sometimes this was done for the protection of themselves, but often times it was for the protection of others. Secondary sources such as the Bryan/College Station media or Texas A&M newspaper should be searched as well as the state's major dailys (Houston Chronicle, Austin-American Statesman etc) I know the chronicle offer free search of its archives back to 1985. While the naming of the temple after a non-biblical woman is indeed noteworthy, its connection with the community (even other jewish communities) needs to be strengthened. Is there documented information on the Temple serving the jewish students at Texas A&M University or Blinn College? There are almost 50,000 students at TAMU, someone or some temple must be serving the religous needs of the Jewish students. Nsaum75 11:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I saw your comment about that in the talk page of the article, and believe it or not I actually did do some searching while attempting to help the creator and before recommending it for deletion (though I would think the burden of notability would be on the article's creator). B/CS media has never mentioned this particular place. Our newspaper is the Bryan-College Station Eagle. No mention. TAMU's approximate 2k Jewish students are served by Chabad of Brazos Valley, Texas A&M Hillel, and the Congregation Beth Shalom, the only active synagogue not affiliated with A&M here. None of those have articles, despite being arguably more notable, while Temple Freda is closed, not in used, and seemingly ignored even by the local Jewish community.

    I did not recommend this article for deletion because I want to suppress a minority (heck, I am one, several times over). I stumbled on it after the creator attempted to See Also it on four different pages it had no business being. I tried to help him clean it up, offered suggestions for improvement. I evaluated its notability using the WP:N guidelines, particularly with regard to local places.
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.