Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish seminary

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. Questions about the scope and formatting of this article/dab page should be resolved on its talk page. Deor (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish seminary

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

This, as it is since long time, should be a Wictionary item. If not, should be written in detail and in encyclopedic language and style to "become" a Wikipedia article. Therefore I suggest its deletion either for RD to the dictionary or per WP:TNT. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yeshiva --Lfrankblam 20:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)
Redirect to Yeshiva. This is subset of the suggested target. It is a likely notable topic but there is no evidence yet that it will support a standalone article. The better approach is to create a useful redirect to a page where it can be read in a broader context. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As much as I see the point, but a seminary can be for boys or for girls, while yeshiva is only for boys. Therefore, a redirect to yeshiva is out of the question. This should be kept, as a disambiguation page. I'll add the template to the page. Debresser (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Had not considered this point which is quite valid; suggestion would be to add a link from Yeshiva to Bais_Yaakov to show there is a distinction, to have a disambiguation page for this purpose seems superfluous. --Lfrankbalm (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Yeshiva per WP:TWODABS and WP:DABCONCEPT. Disambiguation pages are navigational devices, and should not exist if the navigational function can be accomplished in a hatnote, which is why disambiguation pages with only two article links are discouraged. In this case, Yeshiva is the topic that would have the greatest long-term historical significance, and any ambiguity can be resolved with a redirect to Yeshiva and a hatnote indicating the existence of Bais Yaakov. Note that WP:DABMENTION requires that a topic be at least mentioned in the target article. Unless there is a source saying that Bais Yaakov is also known as "Jewish Seminary", this line will be removed in accordance with WP:MOSDAB. bd2412 T 00:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term "seminary" in this context is used for two entirely different purposes, and that's what this article is needed to do. Seminary and Yeshiva are not synonyms. Alansohn (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still a WP:TWODABS situation, and with one of the terms on the page failing WP:DABMENTION. Unless there is a source describing Bais Yaakov as a "Jewish Seminary", it's original research to have it on this page. bd2412 T 02:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BD2412: FYI: See these WP articles (my underlines): 1 "A midrasha (Hebrew: מדרשה, pl. midrashot/s) refers to an institute of Jewish studies for women. In Israel, it is often an Orthodox institution that caters solely to women, and roughly the equivalent of a yeshiva for men. The term is often translated as 'seminary'. In the United States, the term has also been used to refer to co-educational Jewish studies programs..." 2 "Machon Gold was an Orthodox Jewish girl's seminary founded in 1958 by the Torah Education Department of the World Zionist Organization and named after Rabbi Wolf Gold, one of the signatories of the Israeli declaration of independence..." 3 "Midreshet Moriah is a Zionist-Orthodox Jewish seminary[1] in Bayit Vagan, Jerusalem, Israel..." 4 "Midreshet HaRova (Hebrew: מדרשת הרובע‎) is a Religious Zionist Jewish seminary located in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City..." and many others like that. Thank you, IZAK (talk)
Keep because 1 it's a complex term that at times refers to: (i) only all-male-schools, (ii) all female schools, or (iii) co-ed schools, and (iv) sometimes for all three. 2 Thus it does NOT only refer to a "yeshiva" which is basically for males only, but 3 this English language term can and does refer to schools for Jewish females, 4 as well as to non-Orthodox co-ed institutions such as the Conservative Judaism elite school the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 5 as well as to the elite all-male school of Modern Orthodox Judaism the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, and many other types and varieties as its parent category at Category:Jewish seminaries reveals. 6 Thus, this is NOT just a case of "definitions" but how one term is applied for multiple purposes by various groups. 7 At this stage this article is only a WP:STUB and needs to be built up per WP:CHANCE & WP:DONOTDEMOLISH & WP:EXPERT. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This could be both a disambiguation style or an article on the various institutions for higher Jewish learning. The word has a number of meanings depending on which modern-day branch of Judaism one asks. Even within Orthodoxy, the name "seminary" may refer to a yeshiva, a college for girls, and even a rabbinical training school (see Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary). JFW | T@lk 07:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:DABCONCEPT, if it is capable of being an article, please write the article. Otherwise, we are wasting an opportunity to explain this very distinction. bd2412 T 15:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not an article, it is a disambiguation page. Always was, just that nobody marked it as such. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I removed the disambiguation tag per WP:DABCONCEPT, because the uses of the term are not unrelated (in the sense that the planet "Mercury" and the car brand "Mercury" are unrelated). It is a misunderstanding of the navigational purpose of disambiguation pages to mark as ambiguous topics that are capable of being discussed in terms of their relationship, as the above vote actually does. bd2412 T 20:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as User:Jfdwolff and IZAK explained. --Yoavd (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The page as currently formulated is not a disambiguation page and should not be tagged as such. Whether a concept article can be written on the subject remains to be seen, but if there is no substantive changes to this, it should be deleted. older ≠ wiser 23:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Comment: Much of the contention, including the nomination rationale and the disagreement between Debresser and BD2412, seems to be about format. So, is this a dictionary definition? Yes, but perhaps not insuperably so. At present the content is basically a definition and two synonyms. But as IZAK points out, the concept is a bit complicated, so it might be advisable to write a broad-concept article, as BD2412 suggests. Is it a DAB page? No. DAB pages have a specific function as simple navigation aids leading to articles and a specific format, described at MOS:DAB. This page fails on both counts. As Alan Sohn and IZAK point out, there may be a need for disambiguation, as "Jewish seminar" can refer to Yeshiva, Midrasha, and possibly Bais Yaakov. Three or more articles require a DAB page; two articles could be disambiguated with hatnotes, but there is no hard and fast rule against a two-item DAB page when neither of the linked articles is the primary topic. Should the article be deleted? It might not be necessary as a navigation aid, and its possible the broad concept article will never be written, but given the uncertainty, I would default to keep. But remove the {{disambiguation}} template, since the page is not a DAB page as such. Cnilep (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with User Cnilep (talk · contribs), who puts it very well. IZAK (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also agree with Cnilep's proposal, particularly to the extent that with the disambiguation tag removed, other materials can be included in the page, which some editors seem to prefer having there. bd2412 T 20:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation or redirect, who cares? --NE2 02:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Debresser. They're not the same animal. Epeefleche (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - as others have implied this page is neither one thing or another at present but it clearly has some utility. The page needs sorting out but AFD is not cleanup and, on balance, keeping seems the best option at present. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Objecting to a page that makes a useful and accurate navigational distinction because of a technical violation of MOS that is needed for clarity is not a reasonable way to use the MOS. The basic principle is NOT BURO: we can do whatever is helpful to the intended purpose, making whatever exceptions to guidelines fits the situation. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 1 November 2014 (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.