Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshe Meiselman


 * 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 no consensus. Three relists didn't result in any further input. Michig (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Moshe Meiselman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The prod template was removed from the article based on Notability (academics) number 6, which reads "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." I am not certain that Toras Moshe qualifies for that. According to its article, it has graduated over 1000 students since 1982. Firstly, it does not grant degrees to the best of my knowledge. Most yeshivos do not. I don't even think it is AARTS accredited, let alone Middle/Downstate. Furthermore, let us be generous and assume that 1500 students have studied there since 1982. That averages to less than 50 a year; I do not think that qualifies for a "major" institution. Compare that with the Mir, which has 5 times the total number (~7500) that number in any one year, or with R' Avrohom Yehoshua's Brisk, which despite being the direct spiritual descendant of Volozhin does not have its own article, or Ponevezh, which has given rise to many, if not most, of our gedolim in Eretz Yisrael in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, or even Mercaz HaRav, or KBY, which is over 10 times the size. Toras Moshe just does not compare. While the institution may or may not be worthy of an article (Notability (schools) failed, so each school article must be discussed individually), I firmly believe it is not a major academic institution which confers notability on R' Meiselman. There are no other criteria which support the notability, so I believe the subject is not notable as per Wikipedia requirements, and the article should be deleted. Avi (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Avi (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Avi (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete For reasons described above. -- Avi (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: I hear your argument, Avi, but according to your criteria, we would merit only a handful of yeshiva articles on Wikipedia, whereas dozens of secular colleges and universities easily qualify. Most yeshivas are not as big as Ponovezh or the Mir, period. Any yeshiva that has survived for over 30 years, without government support, is significant in the yeshiva world. Yeshivas cannot be evaluated on the same basis as degree-giving colleges; in fact, there is a clear systematic bias in the fact that yeshivas – and rabbis for that matter – are not covered in the relevant Wikipedia policy pages with their unique operating rules. Rabbi Meiselman is notable as a rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Toras Moshe per WP:PROF #6. I've had him on my watchlist for some time now, wanting to source the article for notability. I guess now is the time. Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Then we will have to agree to disagree about the notability of Toras Moshe, and certainly, even if it in and of itself is notable, about its being major vis-a-vis its leader's notability. I agree that yeshivos should have a different standard, but I do not think Toras Moshe qualifies as a major academic institution regardless of the length of its existence. To me, current "major" institutions are more like Mir Yerushalayim, Mir Brooklyn, Ponovezh, MTJ, etc. Those which have a significant impact, be it through size, history, or some other reason. Toras Moshe is just one of many yeshivos in Eretz Yisrael catering to post beis-medrash Americans (and some British, IIRC). Even in that class, I do not think it has even a fraction of the impact of R' Tzvi Kushelefsky, let alone Mir, the various flavors of Brisk, or even the big hesder yeshivos (Gush, KBY, Shalavim). For that matter, I have relatives which have been Roshei Yeshiva and Roshei Kollel for over 30 years; I wouldn't dream of writing Wikipedia articles about them or their yeshivos just for reasons of longevity. In other words, "Bchol makum asher azkir es shemi" applies to limud haTorah, not Wikipedia face-smile.svg. Now it is up to others to opine. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Convoluted argument for deletion. He meets WP:BIO simply by the coverage he received in secondary sources. Bear in mind that most coverage will be in Hebrew language sources. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , it seems you are relying on the general notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In your opinion, where is this suitable coverage? There is one Mishpacha article, yes. The blogs brought in the reference are not suitable sources in this regard (self-published and all). The OU pieces is a book review he wrote, which is certainly not independent of the subject. If you can demonstrate that he passes the general criterion, kol hakavod, but at this point, I do not think he does, and I think it clear that he doesn't pass criterion 6 of the academic notability requirement either. -- Avi (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Mishpacha? blogs? See & . Bear in mind also WP:GLOBALWEIGHT and the most coverage will be in Hebrew language sources. -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 18:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The first link is papers or articles he wrote, not coverage of him, so that is not proof of notability. The second link just lists where he is mentioned. Most often, this appears to be in passing (he gave a hesped, he is quoted by someone else, etc.) . Once again, I do not see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and so he fails notability as respects Wikipedia's stated policies and guidelines in this regard. -- Avi (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I began cleaning up the article. In addition to serving as rosh yeshiva of Toras Moshe for over 30 years, he was also the founder and principal of Yeshiva University of Los Angeles. Yoninah (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per Avi's arguments. There continues to be a mistaken belief that all yeshivot are "major institutions", implying notability of their roshe. This is no more true of Jewish institutions than it is for Protestant bible colleges, Catholic seminaries, or Islamic hawza. \begin{truculent responses}. Agricola44 (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC).
 * This is a biography, not an article on a yeshiva. It strikes me that this recommendation is therefore not germane. Carrite (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , no this is very germane. Yoninah's keep is dependent on the subject's being notable due to Notability (academics) #6, which reads " The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." One of my arguments, agreed with by Agricola, is that Toras Moshe is not a "major academic institution" and so its leader is not ipso facto notable. -- Avi (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮  JAaron95  Talk   15:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2015 (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.