Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detroit Baptist Theological 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unnotable, non-accredited institution. 768 ghits, and no gnews hits. Arbustoo 01:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:ORG. Arbustoo 01:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: DBTS is one of the few independent fundamental Baptist schools of higher education that have been independent and government accredited nationwide, let alone in Michigan. Yes, there are places like Bob Jones and Pensacola, but smaller independent seminaries with definite ties to a "father" local church are rare. - NDCompuGeek 03:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User:NDCompuGeek created the article, but failed to mention that. He also said it is "accredited," but it is not, according to the United States Department of Education. What's your sourcing? Accreditation or not it doesn't matter, where are some sources that show this pass WP:ORG? Arbustoo 03:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Yes, I started the article, from one of the "needed articles" lists on some project - sorry, I forgot which project. As for accreditation, I was under the impression that it is MDOE accredited. I looked it up, and I guess it isnt, so I stand corrected - and I apoligize. Even without accreditation though, I still vote keep.
On a side note, why the personal venomous attack? It's only an AFD.... If someone wanted to gather further information about the article, the "history" link is only a few clicks away. I don't see how it mattered to my vote - it's not like I "failed to mention that" on purpose or with some agenda or something.... - NDCompuGeek 05:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attack. 1) You said it was accredited, but its not, and 2) you didn't mention your connection to it. It doesn't matter for the "vote" per se, but it is an important part to divulge. You still haven't supplied evidence for notability. Arbustoo 06:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of notability? --Butseriouslyfolks 03:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me, any degree-granting institution is "notable"Chickenboner 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Described as what? What significance? What sources? I showed the creator of the page, NDCompuGeek, to be factually wrong-- it is not accredited, but the creator of the page claims it is. What sources are you basing "keep" on? Arbustoo 05:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an "independent fundamental Baptist schools" in Michigan. You know full well that ghits and gnews hits are invalid justifications for deletion, and I would strongly suggest reading Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test, as it seems clear that you have never read that section, or any of the rest of the article, before. I know that you have an issue with "non-accredited institution" but use of the fact as part of a nomination is inexcusable. Alansohn 05:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What part of fails WP:ORG is confusing? Before the word "unaccredited" appears the word is "unnotable." If it was accredited, it would be an automatic keep in my book. It is not and thus was mentioned upfront. The flipside is if I failed to mention it was not accredited I'd be criticized for it, and not offering important details about this place. By the way, I've created several articles about schools that aren't accredited.
        • Did you read Google Test? Part of it reads, a gtest "be useful as a negative test," but not to claim "a large number of hits" makes "a subject notable."
        • I'm going to ask again: What significance? What sources? I showed the creator who's claims you based your vote on, NDCompuGeek, to be factually wrong-- it is not accredited. What sources are you basing "keep" on?Arbustoo 06:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked through the first few pages of ghits and can't find any source that is independent and substantial. It may exist, it may or may not be notable, but if there are no sources what is the basis for the article? --killing sparrows (chirp!) 11:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Unlike Alansohn, I am quite comfy with the use of accreditation and relative G-hits as gauges of the notability of a college and wonder what the fuss is about; despite his disagreement, there is nothing "invalid" or "inexcusable" about either position. What is black-letter policy on Wikipedia, however, is the absolute, irreducible requirement that all articles contain reliable, independent, third-party sources which are more than trivial mentions. Without those sources, any argument that colleges should be notable absent accreditation is moot.  Ravenswing  16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Can you point me to the relevant Wikipedia policy that requires deletion of unaccredited schools, or are you just making this one up? Alansohn 19:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are few Wikipedia policies requiring the deletion of anything, so you might as well put that straw man away. That being said, since "school has notable characteristics" was the justification for your Keep !vote in defiance of WP:V, you admit that there are notability standards for such institutions beyond WP:V; heck, your general position that all high schools are fundamentally notable is of a piece with that. Formal accreditation is generally accepted in the academic world as one of the fundamentals of notability, even by seminaries. You may not agree, and that's your privilege, but you don't get to reject black-letter policy in one moment and in the next deride people because - like yours - their argument isn't explicit black-letter policy.  Ravenswing  19:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As long as we acknowldge that there is absolutely no Wikipedia policy that supports your original research that accreditation confers notability, while non-accreditation makes a school non-notable. As such, your vote is invalid and should be ignored.Alansohn 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • WHOA you just broke WP:CIVIL. How about this Alansohn, you insert sources that demonstrate notability, which justifies a reason for inclusion. The burden of proof belongs to those who want to keep the article because one cannot prove a negative. You prove WP:NOTE and I'll withdraw the afd, but until then see WP:DICK. Arbustoo 01:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Despite the nominator's claim, there are actually nine gnews archive hits since 1980. Is that not multiple and non-trivial enough to meet WP:ORG? Crockspot 17:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Further A lexis nexis search for all available dates returns 500 news hits. - Crockspot 17:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No. I've just looked at each and every one of those nine hits, and all of them are trivial mentions: Soandso got his degree there, Suchandsuch was a teacher there. Not a single one of them, as WP:V requires, are about the school. If you come up with any articles that are genuinely about the school, let us know.  Ravenswing  17:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: LexisNexis apparently does not recognize quotes in the normal search, so I reran it advanced, only 11 hits total. However, this is still substantially more hits than the "zero" claimed in the nomination. - Crockspot 18:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That link of the "11 hits" does not work; it comes up as "The credentials for this user were either missing or invalid." I just searched lexis-nexis (with the advance search feature). It searches 20,000 news sources over the last 40 years and it came up with ONLY 11 hits. They are all trival under headlines like: "Faith notes," two articles about "DEATH NOTICES," and "Balch Springs pool to celebrate summer opening today with a Splash."
    • They are ALL trival. I don't see how you can honestly vote "keep" let alone "strong keep." Based on that search of 20,000 sources, this really should be deleted. No notability: not even descent local coverage. --C56C 18:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See below for changed vote and suggestion. - Crockspot 23:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete absolutely lacking in RS. --C56C 18:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, accredited institution or not, their periodical, the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal published since spring 1996, seems to be found in a number of libraries and gets quite a few ghits. First search Worldcat carries over 150 articles from the journal. The periodical is notable, so is the school. No wikipedia policy or guideline excludes non-accredited schools. --Dual Freq 04:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The journal is $10.00 for two years or you can get free downloads at their website. Not including the seminary itself the journal appears to be in three schools, and only on a CD. As Alansohn, who voted keep above explained, google hits do not equate with popularity, but even that is less than 800 hits many of which are on people's resumes, wikipedia, and ie not WP:RS to show notability. Is that the best reason for keeping it? Three schools have a journal of theirs on CD, whose articles are for free online? To argue the periodical is notable, how widespread is it (other than the three CDs at libraries or the free downloads)? Arbustoo 05:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Worldcat database said 30 libraries, so at least that many. As for the journal, annual publication $10 for 2 years thats $5 per issue. The New England Journal of medicine says $149 for 52 issues, that's $2.86 per issue. I'm not sure how the subscription cost matters, unless you think it is notable that they charge more than the NJM for a subscription. --Dual Freq 05:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three libraries have a complete serial titled Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal. Others like "McAlister Library" have some issues, but stopped their subcription in 2000. For the record "New England Journal of medicine" has 1,610,000 ghits and "Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal" has 720 (including wikipedia). One would think that such a popular journal, as you claim, would break at least 1,000 google hits. Arbustoo 06:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link I have has only 4 (including Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary itself). I searched by serial to get the libraries that has the whole collection. 26 appears to be the libraries that contain parts or all of the serial including digtial only collections and missing collections (If you click on some of the libraries, while it appears it in their catalog the issues come up as "missing"). Arbustoo 06:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that this user was blocked under at least one sockpuppet at the time of this post. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Steven_Taylor. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An AFD is a discussion not a vote. What part of WP:ORG or WP:CORP does this meet? Arbustoo 06:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm happy to discuss. Your primary concerns seem to be that you think it's unnotable (you don't really say why, though) and that it is unaccredited. I think it's notable[1], as it has been around for over 25 years. Secondly, accreditation isn't critical to Christian universities and shouldn't factor in much when it comes to whether or not a school should have a Wikipedia article. --Jason Gastrich 06:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1) Why did you link to a google search for Detroit Baptist Seminary (note: without quotes)? Search for "Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary" in quotes it brings up ONLY 810 ghits. Moreover, ghits do not prove notability. 2) Accreditation has nothing to do with voting against. 3) How does this meet WP:ORG or WP:CORP? Arbustoo 06:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I linked it because it shows that they have a valid address linked to Google, as other businesses and universities do. I'm not going to get into an argument with you and it seems that you're quite passionate about this issue. I'll study WP:ORG and consider contributing more to this page. Thanks, --Jason Gastrich 06:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Typing in Detroit Baptist Seminary (with no quotes) instead of "Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary" to get an address proves what? You can get a valid address at its official website. I don't understand your point. Arbustoo 06:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's just an interesting and helpful fact that some may have overlooked. If you type "Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary" it doesn't come up. If you type "Detroit Baptist Seminary" it does. A map with their address and directions comes up. I believe this means that they have validated their address with Google, as that's what my organization had to do to have such a listing. --Jason Gastrich 06:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, really. No independent non-trivial sources. It might have "notable characteristics" but it fails the primary notability criterion. Guy (Help!) 07:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a minor organisation, fails notability, just plainly unencyclopedic. Shot info 08:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NDCompuGeek. --JJay 12:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Explain that. You voted keep "per" the creator of the article who claimed that it is accredited (its not), and that he thinks notable, but doesn't have sources for it. This is NOT A VOTE. What sources prove notability? Arbustoo 17:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This articles faces the classic problem when we have no non-trivial reliable sources. There is simply nothing we can say about it other than that it exists. The seminary is at this point not notable. If someone can present non-trivial reliable sources I will be happy to change my opinion. JoshuaZ 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Delete - I am changing my !vote to delete, and suggesting to the proponents of keeping this article that they write a new article titled Inter-City Baptist Church, and use the content of the current article as a subsection. I have taken the liberty of saving the content of the current article in the edit history of my own sandbox here, where you can easily retrieve it if the article is deleted. The seminary is intimately tied to the church, and I believe that the church would be easier to assert notability. - Crockspot 23:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ravenswing. MetsFan76 02:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:V. Non-trivial reliable sources are absent. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per various above (RGT). I thought Gastrich was forever banned from editing...? Eusebeus 06:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We need more easily accesible information, not less. People here are just so delete button happy. What's wrong with you? If you don't like the forum, or have something to contribute, then edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JennyMac007 (talk • contribs) 09:23, May 3, 2007 (UTC)
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.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Detroit_Baptist_Theological_Seminary