Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeshiva Gedola of Carteret

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. Discussion indicates that high schools are commonly kept, so long as they are verifiable. While this page still fails WP:DIVERSE, the subject has sources and can be reasonably expected to find more. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshiva Gedola of Carteret

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable no real references in the articles and it has been marked as such for years. CapMan07008 (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable private college, with an article that reads like a prospectus. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This nomination is flawed because the article was not tagged with a "deletion template". IZAK (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IZAK, Did you fix the nomination? I'm sorta new and still learning my way around Wikipedia. CapMan07008 (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm CapMan, for a "new" editor (only joined August 15th, not even two weeks [1]!!!) you sure are busy running to delete articles about Orthodox Judaism and Jews, such as when you were slapped down with a Speedy Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aharon Kotler and now this article. Take a few deep breaths, step back, try to engage other editors in fair discussions first, go to their talk pages, or go to WP:TALKJUDAISM and get the expert views of editors there. This is a long term work in progress. That will help you out. Raise your level of WP:AGF and WP:NPOV and then you can take the lunge at deleting articles that are bound to raise controversy which you should try to avoid. IZAK (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am new, and I've admitted this, as for the Aharon Kotler I admit I didn't do enough research there weren't enough references listed on the pages, it pointed out to me later how I should do a proper search on this. I am still new and learning. I will take your helpful tips, I appreciate you guidance. FYI, I have also nominated non-orthodox articles for deletion with 1 being deleted another 1 prodded and several other where I have tagged for needed references and if there are no reference is a reasonable amount of time they too will be nominated for deletion [2] CapMan07008 (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-written article that needs more citations about a notable yeshiva in New Jersey. IZAK (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, I've been watching this article and trying to improve it for at least 2 years. I've tried finding sources many time and come up with nothing. If you can share some WP:RS that would be great but otherwise, the nominator is correct and the article should go. Joe407 (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I Agree with Joe407, it has been marked for quite some time looking for references since October of 2009, unless they can be added, This should be deleted. DrSultan85 (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, For the Same reasons as Joe407 and DrSultan85, I think this fits under A7, that's why I nominated this. CapMan07008 (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contrary to popular opinion here, the article is apparently sourced. Highschools and a fortiori post-high schools are considered inherently notable. I can't see why this type of schools should be treated any differently. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that opinion is currently changing - see Jimbo Wales talk page, where he says a statement by him on this topic was misconstrued and that in fact schools are not inherently notable. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 06:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen no evidence that opinion is actually changing. Whether this kind of school falls in the mainstream of the years of AfD consensus may be another matter, as this is a specialty school of unclear size.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of Jimbo Wales (what a silly name anyway) and don't give a flying shit what he has to say.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's nobody special, he just THE FOUNDER OF WIKIPEDIA, lol... CapMan07008 (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Specialized high schools and colleges are considered notable. The distinction is between colleges and trade schools. A theological institute ins not a trade school--its a specialized academic institution. Size is irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even If we ignore size, it still has no WP:RS CapMan07008 (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reluctant delete. I am unable to find any coverage in the Haredi press.~~ Yoninah (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Change !vote to keep. I found a feature-length article in Binah women's magazine about the yeshiva, and fleshed out the history accordingly. Now it has reliable sources and awaits more news coverage as it grows. The yeshiva has made an impact by putting Carteret back on the Jewish map after the near-demise of the community in 2002, and rebuilt its Jewish presence with the addition of kollel families who are now making their homes there. In addition, I think that having a template like Template:Yeshivas in New Jersey is of encyclopedic value, and that we should work on populating the template with more articles about these small yeshivas. Yoninah (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Their necessity for template is an excuse; it's not criteria for notability. Please see Kudpung's Opinion. The Terminator p t c 19:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't say the template was a criterion for notability; I said it had encyclopedic value. The references I added to the article show the article's notability. Yoninah (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I change my delete to strong delete although much has been said about this article but thee fact remains it still has insufficient WP:RS, and nothing has been said that might prove its notability, and its deletion has been mentioned before but the process was never initiated[3] an example of another small yeshiva before[4] CapMan07008 (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's sound analysis. There may be a point where a "school" is so small we treat it as a personal project, but this is plainly not such a case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete (as per Joe407 and Yoninah), or pare back to the bare minimum, which is to say the first paragraph and the sidebar. I have some sympathy to the argument that schools are inherently notable enough to be included, but all the details beyond that opening are unsourced and/or unnotable in their own right. — Shmuel (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Must Delete and no doubt about it. when it's bad article we shouldn't be reluctant because of our emotions, the fact is this is relatively small ″school″ with absolutely no 3rd party coverage, and not one of the people objecting to the deletion has provided any proof for its notability or verifiable refs, as a matter of fact I have no idea even if any of what it says in the article is true. Only thing the opponents of the delete have mentioned is empty rhetoric that went against the opinion of the founder of wikipedia. IMHO we need to focus on expanding the notable articles as opposed to wasting our time with articles that are clearly not-notable. For God's sake, It's not even covered by Haredi press 208.54.87.150 (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)— 208.54.87.150 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete As per the Simple Bob 108.35.89.38 (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)— 108.35.89.38 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - for good reason we normally keep high schools or schools that contain high school sections. That is the case here. The issue up to now has been the lack of sources. For example, this search has produced nothing. At that point I would have supported deletion as failing WP:V. However, a substantial source has now been provided. Consequently, I think that it should now be kept and developed. TerriersFan (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources added to the article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.