Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torah Project

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. Kurykh (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Torah Project

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

Non-notable publication project. The refs are basically PR for it. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have expanded and added references to the article. There are currently nine references to publications in Italy, Mexico and the United States. Included are both Catholic and Jewish publications in those countries, and La Stampa, one of Italy's oldest newspapers. This limited edition book is notable as a work of art created to promote interfaith dialogue between Jews and Christians, as reported by the reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an edition of academic or bibliographic interest. It's a prestige gift edition, a super-coffee-table project. Look at the references. They gave a copy to the pope, so it rated 7 essentially identical PR notices that says nothing more than that they gave one to the Pope. This article is part of their PR campaign--they are giving a few as gifts to famous people to help sell the others. Each presentation gift will generate at least one additional PR notice. This is not encyclopedic content, but pR, and probably what should have been done with the article is G11. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC) .[reply]

I understand exactly what you are saying, DGG. However, I see nothing in our policies or notability guidelines that says that we limit our coverage only to books of "of academic or bibliographic interest". Can you point to any such policy or guideline? Can you point to a single notable book published in the last 50 years that has not had a PR effort promoting it? If you mention one or two such books, surely they would be rarities. The sources in this article do not parrot each other but emphasize different aspects of the book project and several show indisputable evidence of independent reporting beyond regurgitation of PR press releases. Like it or not, this book is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Sadly there appears to be no policy based way to be rid of this promotion of a new book. Clever PR work has now included Wikipedia in their campaign. Theroadislong (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is. We can delete an article for being promotional. DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we could, DGG, but I believe that is the wrong course of action in this case. A better alternative is for experienced editors to rewrite the article from the neutral point of view, and add well referenced encyclopedic content to the article. I have done so in the past 24 hours and intend to continue doing so, until the article is fully informative about the topic, which I am convinced is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

opinions obviously differ, but as I see it what you've been adding is yet further references to their attempts at promotion. The policy on whether we keep an article is not WP:N. The policy is WP:NOT. The guideline WP:N is the explanation for how we decide on one part of that policy, NOT INDISCRIMINATE. It might meet that. But it fails other parts of NOT. If something is effectually promotion, it's enough to rule it out as encyclopedia content, because we do not advertise anything, no matter how important. The best that could be done here might be to remove or downplay the sections on its being given to famous people, and remove the promotional quotations in their references, and emphasize the value as art. Including them does not really help the notability, but it buttresses the promotionalism. We can then judge whether it meets the standards for an artist's book. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelnw11: Cullen. Thank you so much for defending the position of the Torah Project article. This article is not very different from Women's Torah Project and Hebrew University Bible Project. There is nothing that insinuates anything about promotion. What I have written was providing information about a project, just like the others. There has not been mention about selling the book on the page which is 100% promotional. There is currently a wikipedia page for Star Wars: The Last Jedi movie which has not even been released into the public yet. So why is that page allowed to be present on the site? Is that considered "encyclopedia content"? Please continue the discussion and let me know how this article can be approved to remain on the site. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelnw11 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelnw11: Hi. Is there any update on the status of this article? Looking forward to receiving your response. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B907:F400:61D3:F1E5:7FAA:3BC8 (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Articles found and checked. This may be a propaganda effort, but successful propaganda efforts become notable. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2017 (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.