Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midrash Shmuel


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Midrash Shmuel Yeshiva

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

The article has been tagged since 2008 as unreferenced and does not demonstrate notability (even unsourced claims). Joe407 (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The listing appears to be implying that Midrash Shmuel Yeshiva does not demonstrate notability. This seems inflamatory and starts off the discussion by misleading others into discussing secondary considerations such as fame, importance, or popularity of Midrash Shmuel Yeshiva when they need to focus on finding enough reliable third-party sources (which in most cases does not include websites). Wikipedia covers notable topics—those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources. The topic Midrash Shmuel Yeshiva will be deemed appropriate for inclusion if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Midrash Shmuel is a well-known yeshiva for English-speaking students from outside Israel. I added a few references relating to the program itself. It is also mentioned on many biography pages of rabbis &mdash; do you want me to add them also? Yoninah (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  — nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 17:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. School seems notable due to references to it in sources—The Jewish Chronicle and The Jewish Press. Bus stop (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Jewish Chronicle article is about Rabbi Hughes, not about the school. It mentions that he studied there and is on the staff of the school.  The Jewish Press article is about Rachel Factor and talks about a planned, future program.  Neither one establishes notability for the school.
 * I'm just trying to find you sources that mention the yeshiva, since you said it had no proof of notability at all. The places which list the yeshiva in a directory format are Nefesh B'Nefesh's Alternative School Directory and The Jewish Travelers' Resource Guide. Yoninah (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking for confirmation that it exists. I'm looking for a WP:RS to give it real coverage in a way that shows that it is notable for purposes of inclusion in an encyclopedia.  What is special/unique/notable about this yeshiva that it should be here other than "It exists"? Joe407 (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's a matter of not finding as much coverage of Haredi yeshivas as we do of secular institutions. Midrash Shmuel is well-known here in Jerusalem for its English-language curriculum and semicha program for foreign students. This is not a small learning program &mdash; it has nearly 200 bachurim plus a summer program, and it has been a mainstay in Shaarei Chesed for almost two decades. The yeshiva's website lists its accomplishments, but we're not able to use that since it's a primary source. What else can we do? Yoninah (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well-known is not the same as notable by Wikipedia criteria, maybe there is no way that you can show it is notable by our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * colleges, like the one at hand, are considered inherently notable. notability is not an issue once RS's establish that it exists.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Joe: Asking what makes any yeshiva notable is like asking what makes any college or university notable since they all perform the same functions and have identical objectives. The differences (aside from size and location and numbers of students) are often mostly in nuances and shades. After all, a college with a BA program does not have to justify why it should be included on Wikipedia and no reasonable editor would ask to know what makes the BA of college Y different or unique compared to the BA on college Z. Likewise any serious yeshiva's program is much like that of others, they are headed by rabbis and teach Torah and Talmud and depending on the type of students and program additional sources on top of that, but the programs are all the same in essence. The fact that this institution has been cited in various media and sources, no matter how briefly, is a big plus because often yeshivas do not seek or get even that kind of recognition in secular sources that they stay far away from. Methinks you are being a little too tough in this instance when you should be thinking of withdrawing this nomination instead. IZAK (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding notability of yeshivas I agree that there is a challenge. As User:Brewcrewer points out institutions of higher education have a degree of inherent notability (forgive me for not hunting down the policy right now).  Two questions:  One - Is a yeshiva the equivalent of a college or a university?  Two - What are the cut offs?  If I have 7 guys in my living room every day learning with a rabbi, can I add my yeshiva (Yeshivas Kol Bechi Tinokos) to wikipedia?

Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Joe: 7 guys in your living room is not a yeshiva or anything for that matter, and you know it, please stop being absurd and demeaning the seriousness of this subject. Here you have quite a few editors come together and based on a fairly good example of WP:CONSENSUS are all in agreement that this yeshiva is notable while your fictional and imaginary "7 guys" hanging out in your living room may have the makings of something one day but right now they are just wannabees (at best). From your last comment it therefore seems that the entire purpose of this nomination in fact violates both WP:POINT and WP:AGF since an AfD is NOT the forum to have this discussion. Try taking it to WP:TALKJUDAISM and see what other Judaic editors say. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Joe: Here is another answer for you, in the USA, most well-known yeshivas, both Hasidic and non-Hasidic are classified as both colleges and universities in states where they exist, see the article about Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools to understand and learn more about this fact. Thanks, IZAK (talk)
 * Keep. Seems properly referenced. Marokwitz (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to repeat myself but could you please clarify what you feel are the proper references? As I noted above, both the Jewish Chronicle and the Jewish Press articles make only passing mention of the yeshiva. Joe407 (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Joe: Even "Passing" references are fine and 100% ok as WP:RS and for WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY because they prove that a subject truly exists and is on the map of reality. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: What type of sources about the yeshiva are available in Hebrew or other languages besides English? Anyway, I think we should keep because even with the English sources, a skim through the article suggests that it's properly sourced.  Schools are notable and this yeshiva ought to have independent sources describing it and giving it some type of assessment for prospective students.  If that doesn't exist, I would be very surprised.  -- La comadreja  formerly AFriedman  RESEARCH   (talk)  08:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep because the article has been improved now with at least 14 WP:RS and because this is a well-known WP:NOTABLE institution in the Haredi world in Israel. It would have been far better to seek input at WP:TALKJUDAISM first rather than go this route. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources provided in the article support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * When I challenged the notability of this institution it was under the guideline of WP:N which states ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I have nothing against this yeshiva but did not see neither a statement of notability nor reliable sources with significant coverage.  To be honest, even now, when the article has lots of tags, I am not seeing reliable sources with significant coverage.  All I am seeing are sources that make trivial mention of the subject.  Yes, they confirm the existence of the institution but do nothing for its notability. Joe407 (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The notability is implied through the fact that Midrash Shmuel has produced so many hundreds of graduates who are now making a significant contribution to the English-speaking Torah world. Yoninah (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have spent the past 2 days combing the web for sources, and this is all I've managed to come up with. Even adding the rosh yeshiva, Rabbi Binyomin Moskovits, to the search is coming up with nothing. Aside from its website, this yeshiva is not looking for publicity. Searching on Google Israel is futile, as this is an English-speaking yeshiva for overseas students. Unless and until The Jerusalem Post or Haaretz comes up with an expose, I'm afraid this is all we've got.
 * I am concerned with this AfD, and the recently closed AfD for Rabbi Moshe Sacks, that Wikipedia rules simply don't take into account the publicity-shy nature of Haredi rabbis and yeshivas. Here you have a well-known (in Israel), popular, two-decade-old yeshiva (which is also an address for local English-speaking girls looking for a shidduch with American, English and South African boys), but since it's not written up in some journal, we have to say it's not notable. Instead we must say, as Brewcrewer notes, that colleges are inherently notable; otherwise, we will never fill up the red links on List of yeshivas with bona fide articles. Yoninah (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said Yoninah. We need to figure out a way for the WP notability policies to take into account subject such as these.  I would be quite happy to see a notability policy for yeshiva's (or other notable institutions that do not naturally garner much press).  For the moment, this yeshiva seems to fail WP:N.  While I don't want to be the guy waving the rulebook around, in a way I'm ok with that because without a policy of some sort, what stops me from having an entry for every 10 man kollel in a shul? Joe407 (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Joe, what do you mean by "well-said" to Yoninah when she is opposing you and working hard to stop this AfD by beefing up the article by adding many excellent WP:RS, and again, no one in their right minds is proposing that a collection of ten men in a shull be given their own WP article. Stick to the point of your own AfD and that is that the institution you chose to nominate for this AfD is a very prominent and well-known institution in the Torah world. 100% of gentiles, as well as most secular Jews, have absolutely no clue what a yeshiva is, let alone name any, so your feistiness in this situation is gratuitous and counter-productive, and stands in the way of those editors who, based on their contributions, do know something about this subject and given enough WP:AGF and by you avoiding WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, they are writing, editing and contributing to such articles, no less than other editors are doing in the tens of thousands of other subjects that Wikipedia has articles about and about which one does not opine if one knows nothing about that subject. All this should be self-evident, obvious and logical to any rational, reasonable and fair-minded editor. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment of "Well said" was because I agree with Yoninah's concern regarding both "this AfD, and the recently closed AfD for Rabbi Moshe Sacks, that Wikipedia rules simply don't take into account the publicity-shy nature of Haredi rabbis and yeshivas.". She is correct.  The correct solution is for us to fix the policy not ignore the policy.  As I said above, the problem with having no policy is that you have yeshiva's that really have no claim to notability with articles on WP simply because the bochrim thought it was a laugh or because someone in the hanhalah realized that it is a good way to push upward on google's ratings.  I'll say it again:  I have no beef with this institution and am not a rabid deletionist (feel free to look through my edit history of the past two years).  I do want standards on WP and at the moment this article does not (and possibly cannot) uphold those standards.  The beautiful part is that on WP, we can change the standards.  Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, the publicity-shy nature of Haredi rabbis and yeshivas simply don't take into account Wikipedia rules regarding inclusion of a written topic in its encyclopedia. Why would anyone want adjust Wikipedia to go against the publicity-shy nature of Haredi rabbis and yeshivas by bending Wikipedia's article includsion rules to give publicity to people intentionally trying to avoid it? Biographies of living persons is slanted to support the Haredi rabbis and yeshivas desire for unpublished efforts, which is a beautiful thing about Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Close - This AfD posting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ Midrash Shmuel is inconsistent with a request to delete the Midrash Shmuel school ( Midrash Shmuel Yeshiva ) article. Also, changing Template:La after discussion has begun still doesn't fix the problem. Also, it would have influenced the discussion had it been known from the beginning that this was the second request to delete this article. See Articles for deletion/Medrash Shmuel yeshiva. Since the AfD request is defective, it should be closed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Uzma Gamal, this is not a court of law where cases are thrown out on a technicality. In editing the page during the AfD process, I noticed that the page name, Midrash Shmuel, more commonly refers to an aggadic midrash on the Books of Samuel, so I made the disambiguation page and fixed all the titles. And your first assertion, that if Haredi yeshivas don't want publicity, they don't belong on Wikipedia, is ludicrous. I think we can end this AfD by stating that all colleges &mdash; even those you aren't familiar with &mdash; are inherently notable.
 * In the meantime, I've added another ref from the South African Jewish Report, something about ongoing alumni activity, and information about college credits through Touro College and Hebrew Theological College. By the way, I looked up the page about Toras Moshe, another English-speaking, post-high-school yeshiva in Jerusalem, and (whew!) was able to reference it with adequate sources before another AfD could be opened. I think we Jewish editors need to go around doing more writing and expanding and less deletion-patrolling so we can improve the overall project. Yoninah (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For those who are unfamiliar with the whole phenomenon of post-high-school study programs for overseas students in Israel, I've added a background article. Yoninah (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yoninah, schools are not inherently notable. However, it would be fair to say that just about all schools receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources such that a school as a topic will usually meet Notability. If any significant amount of money went into building Midrash Shmuel Yeshiva and running Midrash Shmuel Yeshiva or if it is government money, then many people likely have written about it and there will be written government records about the school. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2010 (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.