328:. 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.
416:, 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.
393:, 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.
306:
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
411:
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
307:
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.
471:. 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
475:
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.
279:
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
166:
508:
286:, 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.
412:
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
216:
119:
160:
256:
444:
236:
353:
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
Knowledge in their campaign.
126:
463:
Michaelnw11: Cullen. Thank you so much for defending the position of the Torah
Project article. This article is not very different from
512:
491:
92:
87:
96:
468:
17:
531:
79:
181:
501:
Michaelnw11: Hi. Is there any update on the status of this article? Looking forward to receiving your response. Thank you
148:
526:
Notable. Articles found and checked. This may be a propaganda effort, but successful propaganda efforts become notable.
452:
264:
244:
224:
554:
527:
40:
472:
142:
358:
535:
516:
495:
464:
456:
448:
427:
406:
384:
362:
341:
318:
299:
268:
260:
248:
240:
228:
220:
208:
138:
61:
550:
487:
36:
483:
504:
479:
188:
399:
334:
292:
174:
354:
83:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
549:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
57:
154:
394:
329:
287:
423:
380:
314:
204:
75:
67:
113:
53:
282:
418:
390:
375:
325:
309:
199:
373:
Of course there is. We can delete an article for being promotional.
197:
Non-notable publication project. The refs are basically PR for it.
543:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
109:
105:
101:
173:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
557:). No further edits should be made to this page.
217:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
187:
8:
443:Note: This debate has been included in the
257:list of Judaism-related deletion discussions
255:Note: This debate has been included in the
235:Note: This debate has been included in the
215:Note: This debate has been included in the
502:
477:
445:list of Italy-related deletion discussions
442:
324:I understand exactly what you are saying,
254:
237:list of Bible-related deletion discussions
234:
214:
509:2A02:C7D:B907:F400:61D3:F1E5:7FAA:3BC8
7:
24:
469:Hebrew University Bible Project
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
574:
536:19:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
517:12:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
496:18:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
457:13:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
428:04:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
407:17:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
385:14:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
363:10:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
342:05:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
319:04:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
300:03:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
269:01:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
249:01:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
229:01:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
209:21:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
62:01:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
546:Please do not modify it.
473:Star Wars: The Last Jedi
32:Please do not modify it.
465:Women's Torah Project
528:Bahb the Illuminated
519:
507:comment added by
498:
482:comment added by
459:
449:Shawn in Montreal
271:
261:Shawn in Montreal
251:
241:Shawn in Montreal
231:
221:Shawn in Montreal
565:
548:
404:
402:Let's discuss it
339:
337:Let's discuss it
297:
295:Let's discuss it
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
573:
572:
568:
567:
566:
564:
563:
562:
561:
555:deletion review
544:
400:
389:Yes, we could,
335:
293:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
571:
569:
560:
559:
539:
538:
461:
460:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
366:
365:
347:
346:
345:
344:
303:
302:
273:
272:
252:
232:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
570:
558:
556:
552:
547:
541:
540:
537:
533:
529:
525:
522:
521:
520:
518:
514:
510:
506:
499:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
474:
470:
466:
458:
454:
450:
446:
441:
440:
429:
425:
421:
420:
415:
410:
409:
408:
405:
403:
398:
397:
392:
388:
387:
386:
382:
378:
377:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
364:
360:
356:
355:Theroadislong
352:
349:
348:
343:
340:
338:
333:
332:
327:
323:
322:
320:
316:
312:
311:
305:
304:
301:
298:
296:
291:
290:
285:
284:
278:
275:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
253:
250:
246:
242:
238:
233:
230:
226:
222:
218:
213:
212:
211:
210:
206:
202:
201:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:Torah Project
73:
72:
69:
68:Torah Project
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
545:
542:
523:
503:— Preceding
500:
478:— Preceding
462:
417:
413:
401:
395:
374:
350:
336:
330:
308:
294:
288:
281:
276:
198:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
484:Michaelnw11
161:free images
551:talk page
351:Weak Keep
283:La Stampa
37:talk page
553:or in a
505:unsigned
492:contribs
480:unsigned
414:anything
120:View log
39:or in a
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
396:Cullen
331:Cullen
289:Cullen
139:Google
97:delete
54:Kurykh
424:talk
381:talk
315:talk
205:talk
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
532:talk
524:Keep
513:talk
488:talk
467:and
453:talk
359:talk
277:Keep
265:talk
245:talk
225:talk
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
50:keep
419:DGG
391:DGG
376:DGG
326:DGG
310:DGG
200:DGG
189:TWL
118:– (
52:.
534:)
515:)
494:)
490:•
455:)
447:.
426:)
383:)
361:)
321:.
317:)
267:)
259:.
247:)
239:.
227:)
219:.
207:)
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
530:(
511:(
486:(
451:(
422:(
379:(
357:(
313:(
263:(
243:(
223:(
203:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.