Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Torah Museum

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. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Living Torah Museum[edit]

A museum started by a redlinked Lubavitcher rabbi whose synagogue and book were deleted as lacking evidence of significance (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liozna). No evidence of significance, no references, 39 unique Googles. Looking at the excluded Gogole results I think this has also been astroturfed in the past. Guy 13:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Not notable --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong KEEP. The reason for this listing for deletion is wrong, a google search for "Living Torah Museum" produced 48,000 results. Would seem most certainly notable of an article. Mathmo 03:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but only 39 unique ones, as can be seen when you try clicking on the pages to see the results. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a lack of both established notability and verifiable information. One of the references given is a blog, written by someone who hadn't even seen the museum. Not quite what I'd call a reliable source. --Huon 08:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep. It is museum, it exists and it is verifiable. As for deleted rabbi, the problem was not with rabbi, but with authors of the deleted articles who wrote incoherent and badly titled texts. `'mikka (t) 00:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are museums which fit in one room, and museums which fill whole buildings. Which is this? Is existence now sufficient for inclusion? The rest of the walled garden of which this was part has now been deleted. Guy 09:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the museum is unique since most Orthodox Jews do not visit secular museums - yet this one has the approval of being "kosher" for Haredi Jews to go to. It's located in the largest American Haredi community of Boro Park where tens of thousands of Haredi Jews live. Many of the most prominent rabbis in this community have come to the museum and praised it. It contains mostly archaelogical artifacts from Biblical times and often serves as a hands-on experience for many subjects studied in the Talmud and Tanakh on a theoretical level. The rabbi who runs it, Rabbi Shaul Deutsch (and it is not a "crime" to be red-linked on Wikipedia as far as I know), also writes a weekly lengthy column about the subjects in the museum in the American Modia newspaper (which in itself would make him notable in many Haredi circles and always remember: notability is relative), a widely-read Haredi weekly read in Brooklyn and beyond. Google alone is no way to judge issues and subjects of importance to Haredi Jews, and how else is the world going to learn about Haredi Jews if articles about such things will be wiped off the map as illustrated by Guy's comments. IZAK 02:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would be much more inclined to vote keep if a second reference could be supplied, for example its coverage in Modia. Tewfik^Talk 19:20, 27 September 2006 (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.