Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morenu

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. This does need more encyclopedic information, Keep !voters please work on it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morenu

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

This is pretty much a dictionary definition of a Hebrew word. Dtm1234 (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DICDEF. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's an important stub, not just about a word, but about a rabbinic position and title as part of a larger picture relating to Haredi Judaism. I have added the categories of Category:Hebrew words and phrases and Category:Orthodox rabbinic roles and titles for clarification, and just by delving into them one can see right away that this stub is part of a very much larger important subject. IZAK (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps then you could add some information to the article beyond it's simple definition? I agree that the term is commonly used to refer to Roshei Yeshiva and other big rabbis; however, I don't think that there is really much here to say beyond what it means. Dtm1234 (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. Totally agree with IZAK. --Coin945 (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DICDEF.

Oh, sorry, was that a vague wave? I mean these bits: "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written." and "Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic... but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns." It seems likely that this article can and should be expanded to discuss the role and its relationship to Rabbi. Cnilep (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2012 (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.