Deletion of Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation (2nd nomination)

Comment: this is a case where we need to use a good dose of common-sense. The notability guidelines were established to avoid articles being written on obviously non-notable subjects (such as my cat who is truly exceptional but not, sadly, of general interest:-)). They weren't designed to eliminate pages on clearly significant topics such as this, which is a subject on which many people want to find some NPOV information. Oh, and in case my comment is not considered policy-complain, yes, it meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This appears to be a run of the mill Synagogue that fails to have any specific notability per  or . It makes no claims of notability in the article itself other than being the subject of being the target of antisemitic shouting (which was a passing reference of ).  The other two primary claims in the article are about the Rabbi, not the synagogue, and notability is .  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.  The majority of the "Keep" arguments above are comprised of  as well and do not add comments in favour of keeping, with one other argument being, "This synagogue is an important part of Manchester's Jewish community" but no reliable source coverage to support notability of such a claim
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NONPROFIT||WP:GNG||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:JUSTAVOTE)

Comment: no indication of significant coverage (mostly only passing mention), or of any particular claim to notability. Places where somebody famous lived, worked, etc ''are not notable'', unless their notability is demonstrated ''independently'' of their famous occupant -- that's the whole point of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: I'm surprised that the sources thrown up were blithely accepted as evidence of the subject's notability.  Of the one independent source that isn't a broken link, the only mention of the subject is that the congregation's rabbi was quoted in a story - and as we all know, I am sure,  explicitly states that quotes from an organization's personnel do not qualify by themselves as valid sources.  There are no |reliable, independent sources which discuss the subject in the "significant detail" required, and the Keep proponents in the earlier AfD (several of whom are veteran editors) ought to have known better
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:IRS)

Comment: I think |the claims, if backed up by |reliable sources, would show |notability.  I'll take a |closer look before taking a stand
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:BEFORE)