Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ateret Yerushalayim


 * 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   delete. Absent any guideline establishing "inherent notability" for such programs, there is a clear consensus to delete based on the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice to the creation of a redirect. Mkativerata (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ateret Yerushalayim

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable Yeshiva program. Not covered in any third party sources—all the links provided in the article are yellow page-like entries and/or promotional ones. Article was PRODded but contested after having been deleted. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ateret Cohanim, the notable Yeshiva also known as Ateret Yerushalyim. Marokwitz (talk) 06:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - IMO, not every school should warrant an article, this one is not yet notable.--Sreifa (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's just as notable as several other yeshivas that have their own pages, including Yeshivat Eretz HaTzvi, Yeshivat Ma'ale Gilboa, Marbeh Torah, Yeshivat Ohr David, Yeshivat Ohr Yerushalayim etc. etc. And it should not be redirected to Ateret Cohanim, if only because this institution is actually named Ateret Yerushalayim, and Ateret Cohanim is not. Three of the links are independent, 3rd party links, and one of them is from a governmental organization which does a thorough, independent check of all the institutions it lists, so that should undoubtedly qualify as reliable. There's no justification for deleting this page without deleting all of the others, and I don't think you would be doing Wikipedia a service if you do delete the pages for these educational institutions, each of which have served hundreds of students worldwide. Ezzi386 (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For the first point, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
 * For the second point, as pointed out below, they are directory entries. They do not cover the subject in any way, as WP:N stipulates. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. It may be notable, but the refs do not appear to me to support that. The first (ateret.org) looks like the website of the program itself (or its parent organization). The next two (masaisrael and findayeshiva) looks like just directory entries (sites containing uncritically evaluated collection of listings of numerous programs) so they prove existence not notability. The yu.edu one is a dead-link, and the only mention of the topic on their website is http://yu.edu/admissions/israel-program/men-schools/ which similarly looks like a directory. There may well be similar problems in other schools'/programs' articles that could lead to their deletion as well if not resolved. DMacks (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, makes mention of the concept 'Inherent notability', which, as an example, they say: "generally speaking, any high school is deemed to be sufficiently notable for an article, but lower-level schools are generally not." So I would argue that all institutions of this nature posses such inherent notability. And whilst it may be correct that the article needs better references, that is a good reason to put a Primary sources needed tag on the article, and try to improve it, not a good reason to delete an article on an inherently notable institution. Ezzi386 (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N. Article does not cite substantial coverage in reliable sources.  Sandstein   06:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Like other editors, I find no evidence that this institution meets the GNG. Ezzi386's argument that such institutions ought to be considered inherently notable is certainly worth discussion, but this is not the proper venue for that discussion, and there is no current consensus for that stance.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  20:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.