Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medrash Shmuel yeshiva


 * 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. SynergeticMaggot 01:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Medrash Shmuel yeshiva
not notable 2 google hits http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Medrash+Shmuel+yeshiva%22&hl=en&lr=&filter=0 PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  19:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 311 google hits http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22Medrash+Shmuel%22 --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1440 google hits (many are about the Midrash Shmuel, not about the yeshiva - but some are) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22Midrash+Shmuel%22 --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  19:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Why should this be deleted?!?! I believe you owe me an apology. And no one would agree with you--not merely because your "considerations" are meritless, but because of the motivation underlying your decision to delete this, as well.  You poor form is not in keeping with Wikipedia's standards.  You have been warned.  Again.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCharlesII (talk • contribs)
 * Keep of course we should keep this. It is quite famous. I see no reason to delete this article. On the contrary, the more articles, the better. I am quite surprised, unpleasantly surprised, by Pinchas' actions in trying to get this article deleted. Google is NOT an absolute tool for determining notability. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Semi-related Comment Daniel575, is the title of the article correct? Should it be "Medrash Shmuel" or "Medrash Shmuel (yeshiva)". I'm not familiar with the subject and don't feel qualified to make a decision on it's status, thought you might have some insight into the title though. In addition, I think the nominator is looking for some sources to verify it does exist, perhaps since you are familiar with the subject you could add a couple to help verify it. DrunkenSmurf 20:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See Ponevezh yeshiva, Mir yeshiva, Brisk yeshivas. We always write it like that, so that's ok. --Daniel575 | (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep A yeshiva with 300 students seems fine to me. Dev920 21:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  Delete  Does every Yeshiva need an entry in Wikipedia, with a link to the Yeshiva's webpage? This seems like a vanity piece. If it has no notable historical value (and is merely another Yeshiva), how is thsi notable? --Meshulam 22:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Does every Yeshiva need an entry in Wikipedia, with a link to the Yeshiva's webpage?" Yes. We're contributing to the sum of human knowledge - yeshivas are part of that. Dev920 22:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. By that logic, every school that has over 300 students ought to have a Wikipedia page regardless of its notability... Unless someone can demonstrate some reason why the place is notable, I say delete it.--Meshulam 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "every school that has over 300 students ought to have a Wikipedia page" Seems like a good plan. Dev920 22:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PinchasC, perhaps note should be taken of the fact that Dev920 thinks every school with over 300 students in it should have a Wikipedia page. Perhaps his vote should be considered in light of his position (which is blatantly contrary to Wikipedia's policy).--Meshulam 22:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should note that Wikipedia policy allows any editor, regardless of their philosophy, vote and give their views. Perhaps you should also read someone's userpage before assuming they are male. Dev920 22:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dev. We should have an article on every school. We should have an article on every TREE in SIBERIA, for that matter. The more the better! Well, as long as the articles are of some quality, of course. We agree on that. We don't want 100 million articles all consisting of just one sentence. For the Midrash Shmuel yeshiva, we can definitely write a real article. The Jewish editors can try to find alumni who may be able to prive some more information. --Daniel575 | (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, editors cannot get infomration from alumni. WP:OR. Jon513 01:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my vote to keep. This article is decidedly not-notable in its present state. It needs to be expanded upon so as not to be anything other than an advertisement for the Baal Teshuva wing's website. At present, it should be deleted.  However, Wikipedia policy (though I imagine it didn't have Yeshivot in contemplation when it wrote its rules) supports keeping articles about post-high school educational institutions. In a way, a Yeshiva is just that. I state my objection to the blanket rule that Wikipedia has adopted. But rules are rules.  --Meshulam 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep or Delete  While wikipedia does not have a clearly stated notability test for schools, the basic guildlines (outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Schools) state that post-secondary school's are considered notable. Is a yeshiva, which is a location for advanced study of the Talmud, considered to be post-secondary education?  If so, then keep.  If not, delete for lack of notability.  will381796 23:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This yeshiva is a place where those who finished high school and usually also college study. It is for those 18 years and older. Most students are around 20 to 25 years old, others are 'professional' students, who are married and spend their whole lifes learning. So I assume you'll go for a keep. I almost changed your vote accordingly, but I leave that up to you. --Daniel575 | (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Based upon the above statement concerning this Yeshiva, I change my suggestion to keep. Remember: this is not a vote.  Just us expressing our opinions.  will381796 01:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. See the article (what it says about Aliyos Shmuel) and then the Aliyos Shmuel website. Aliyos Shmuel is a part of Medrash Shmuel specially focused on the newly religious. --Daniel575 | (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep google hits for a yeshiva?! Don't you know haredim don't use the internet! Why would there be google hits about it? Whatever happened to inherent school notability, eh? - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.  - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your help. How can i get help.  Anyone who looks at this agrees that PinchosC is doing this solely out of malicious intent.  There must be some checks against his excesses. DavidCharlesII 18:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * David, it is a good manners and Wikipedia policy to assume good faith. Pinchas is respected editor and I do not believe that he is being malicious.  The reason why some editor believe some pages sould be deleted is explained here. See also Notability for a discussion on why artiles should or shouldn't be deleted. and Consensus for an understanding of wikipedia's checks against excess. Jon513 01:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * weak keep because wikipedia tends to keep all schools. My consern is that there is a lack of notable sources about many school.  I doubt that there have been any papers or newspaper articles about Medrash shmuel (or almost any yeshiva for that matter).  Daniel575 mentioned above that you could ask an alumni (I know one!), but unless I am asking him to write and publish something it would violate WP:NOR.  Jon513 01:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Midrash Shmuel is one of the most important Yeshivas in the Israeli scene. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 16:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep. The article belongs in an encyclopedia, if it can be written so as to make the topic's notability apparent, but I want to be clear that I'm not endorsing DavidCharlesII's combative attitude at all--♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:53, 20 August 2006 (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.