Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andersonville Theological Seminary

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. While numerous sources have been put forward, I see consensus that they do not meet the requirements to establish notability. I considered relisting this to allow for further discussion, but the discussion's direction of travel seems very much in one direction, and I strongly doubt whether further discussion would change the outcome. Girth Summit (blether) 12:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andersonville Theological Seminary[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Andersonville Theological Seminary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Quite clear this is promotionary in tone and does not demonstrate significant coverage. The information that is here is provided almost directly by primary sources, namely the organisation itself and there's no evidence of impact or significance of the institution. Furthermore, as a cynic, it seems the list of "notable alumni" is being used to establish some form of inherited notability, which simply isn't appropriate. Either way, the institution is not notable per WP:NCORP. It's been tagged since Dec 21 as such and I don't think its gotten any better. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I would expect a tertiary college with 3000 students to be notable, but the emphasis is on education by extension, i.e. part-time courses; its awards are unaccredited; and almost all information comes from an internal source. I am very dubious of its notability, but am willing to be proved wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am under the impression that any presumption of notability for colleges and universities hinges on accreditations, something this school lacks. 174.212.229.73 (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations ahas nd must satisfy those criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the presumption of significant coverage. It's certainly a very real seminary (as opposed to a diploma mill) and lots of hits in both GBooks and GNews. Now, most of these are of the form "xxx attended Andersonville" but it makes me thing significant coverage exists if only I went through enough pages of Google results. StAnselm (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV and all it tells us is that someone attended the institution not that the institution is noteworthy (see WP:NSCHOOL). >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 09:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the non-profit seminary (which is over 40 years old) has apparently over 30,000 graduates and 3,000 enrolled students. Furthermore, the seminary has over a million a year in operating expenses and is a certified institution with the National Christian Counselors Association (NCCA) and had previously been an affiliate of the Association for Biblical Higher Education until ABHE discontinued the affiliate program. ATS is a Member of the Association of Christian Distance Education (ACCESS), and also a member of the Council of Private Colleges of America (CPCA), and the United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA). Andersonville Theological Seminary was chartered by the State of Georgia as a non-profit Christian seminary and was approved by the Georgia Nonpublic Postsecondary Education Commission for Religious Exemption. Andersonville Theological Seminary has been approved by the Internal Revenue Service as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization. ATS students come from 24 foreign countries and all 50 states and the student body is theologically, culturally, and denominationally diverse. Make way for Tigers (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All of these things are great but they don't address our notability guidelines for schools. The request to delete this article is no way a reflection on the quality or the efficacy of the organisation outside of Wikipedia. Lots of organisations, institutions and people don't end up on Wikipedia but it doesn't diminish their worth or value. However, Wikipedia is a digital encyclopaedia of things which are significant. The seminary is small and its impact is minimal. It has not received independent coverage that warrants a page on wikipedia. That information is without discrimination and again, does not reflect on the institution, its value or its purpose. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen claims that the seminary was "chartered by the State of Georgia" before. No actual sources though. At least not any that don't either come from the seminary itself, or fail to actually support the claim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Siginficant Outside Sources: Mr. Andy I found a source showing Andersonville Theological Seminary (though I prefer the original founding name of Andersonville Baptist Seminary) is in fact a religious exempt institution with the state of Georgia [1] This list is current (as of 2021 Annual Report) and is from the Georgia Nonpublic Postsecondary Education Commission. Without question this Baptist institution is in good standing with the state. Also keep in mind the seminary has a significant economic impact to both Albany, Georgia and to Mitchell County where the seminary is headquartered. Within the last few months the The Albany Herald wrote about the notable founder Dr. Hayes and the seminary he founded which can be found here: [2]. Make way for Tigers (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ GNPEC 2021 Annual Report
  2. ^ About Jimmy Hayes and the seminary he founded
Wikipedia's notability requirements are for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Significant coverage actually directly discussing the subject of the article for which notability is being asserted. That is how notability is determined here. It is the only way notability is determined here. The naming of the subject in a list isn't 'significant coverage', regardless of what the list is of, or who it is published by. And mere assertions by contributors about significance to a local economy are of no relevance whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry The Albany Herald does not meet the liberal prestige of the New York Times that you require. But the fact is it's a good newspaper and is notable. Make way for Tigers (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV explicitly says the subject "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". The Albany Herald article is indeed an independent reliable source providing significant coverage. StAnselm (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is independent coverage, but 'significant'? A few rather vague sentences about the number of students etc isn't much to build an article around. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well here is a link to the IRS, and all of Andersonville Baptist Seminary's tax returns over the last four years: https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/detailsPage?ein=581989996&name=Andersonville%20Baptist%20Seminary%20Inc.&city=Camilla&state=GA&countryAbbr=US&type=returnsSearch --> Does that help? I ask because it shows over a million a year in educational activities (programming, salaries, etc.) which is actually alot for a seminary. Make way for Tigers (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again it only demonstrates the number of students and/or revenue. What we haven't got is a bunch of reliable independent sources talking about the seminary or its impact. Notability is not implied just because an organisation has x number of students or is proponent/champion of X Bible unless they have received coverage from that which is independent of the movement itself. I think its clear that opposition to the deletion of the article is everything to do with promotion and feeling it is worthy instead of anything based on evidence or fact. I do wonder if people realise that wikipedia articles are not a given right or entitlement, its not the end of the world to not have and they do not help with search engine optimisation. At this point, can I recommend you take a deep breath, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass? >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 16:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Make way for Tigers - yes there is some mentions there which are notable (except LinkedIn which is self-published, and Seminary.com which is not independent of the topic etc.) but the coverage isn't significant. Many of these sources just tell us that the institution exists or its links to the of Georgia. That said, whether or not the institution is in good state is not in question nor is its value to the community. WP:ORGSIG says "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it.. Furthermore WP:INHERITORG says An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it, so even if the seminary's founder or principle is notable, it doesn't mean that the wider organisation is. WP:ORGDEPTH provides some examples of the type of coverage that doesn't establish notability, much of this is exemplified in the section about academics and accreditation. I understand you have personal affection for the seminary either as a theologian or previous alumni of it, or perhaps due to religion however the process being gone through here is not designed to disrespect the topic, religion or seminary. Its an assessment against our objective criteria and would be applied equally whatever services the institution delivered. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 11:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lil-unique1 - I am of the opinion that you are not being disrespectful to this seminary. Furthermore, I appreciate that this discussion has been brought up as well. I just think with all the things discussed (Anderson Baptist Seminary's huge number of graduates, large yearly operating expenses, dozens of outside sources, significant economic impact to the region, etc.) that if this seminary is not deemed notable by Wikipedia then perhaps 99% of all seminaries (not affiliated with a large liberal university) would also fail the notability test. It's a slippery slope and I object strongly to deleting any seminary from Wikipedia. Also, were you aware that Andersonville is a thought leader in the King James Promotion Movement? Make way for Tigers (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That you personally 'object to the deleting of any seminary from Wikipedia' is of no concern here, since this is a discussion about whether the specific subject of this AfD discussion meets notability criteria as they currently stand. If you wish to propose a change to the well-established Wikipedia-wide criteria, you will have to do so elsewhere, since it cannot be done here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting seminaries that are not liberal enough is of concern. It's called censorship. Make way for Tigers (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The politics of this seminary are of no relevance to this discussion whatsoever. Nobody has mentioned them. The article says nothing about them. Wikipedia policy says nothing about such matters. This supposed 'censorship' is a figment of your imagination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a figment. The seminary and it's Doctrinal Statement (https://andersonvilleseminary.com/about/doctrinal-statement/) is not politics (it's actually the heart of the institution). The fact is Andersonville Baptist Seminary is an Independent Baptist institution and has been a standard-bearer for the KJV-Only movement for over 40 years now (how can that not be considered when the seminary's notability is being called into question?) Make way for Tigers (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For anything to be 'considered' here, we need published sources directly discussing it. Not mere assertions from contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well Andersonville Baptist Seminary was included on the list for "Seminaries teach a literal Genesis, including six-day, young-Earth Creation". Here is the source: https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/creationist-schools-a-z.html --> The fact of the matter is the seminary is well respected in the Independent Baptist community. I may be able to find additional sources if needed Make way for Tigers (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of the Andersonville Seminary amongst a list of 207 such institutions does not constitute evidence that it has been "a standard-bearer for the KJV-Only movement for over 40 years now". I'd ask that you please stop spamming this page with links to mere mentions. We need evidence for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Not passing mentions, accompanied by assertions that this is evidence of significance. It isn't. Not according to well-established Wikipedia notability criteria. The fundamental criteria are the same for any topic, and they aren't open to negotiation here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's offensive to say I am spamming the page (and its difficult to quantify independent 3rd party evidence of Andersonville Baptist Seminary's direct contribution to the KJV-Only movement). But let's apply some critical thinking here. Look at Andersonville's Doctrinal Statement and the student catalog and it clearly states that it is a King James Version only seminary. But think about all those students over the last 40 years that were taught seminary courses via the King James Bible. That is approximately 30,000 pastors that are going to be spreading the KJV-Only message to their congregations. Clearly the seminary has made a profound impact on the KJV-Only Movement. Make way for Tigers (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinions on 'profound impacts' are of precisely zero relevance to this discussion. Provide the sources required to demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia criteria. They are the only thing that matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have added a couple of references to the article. StAnselm (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
StAnselm - Looks great. Make way for Tigers (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a single reference meets WP:NORG criteria for establishing notability. We have nothing that provides in-depth information and containing "Independent Content". Topic fails NORG. HighKing++ 15:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, none of the Keep !voters have provided any convincing WP:NORG guideline-based justification. We have a GHITS argument as the basis for a "presumption" of notability. We have another telling us the stats (all PRIMARY sourced) and about how big the org is as a reason. Then we have a plethora of references which do little more than confirm the organizations existence and leads me to question whether the !voter has grasped our notability criteria (I mean, mapquest reference and a google maps references??). HighKing++ 14:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keepstrike double !vote - I disagree - these are strong sources (Albany Herald, The State of Georgia, United States Distance Learning Association, Academia.edu, CauseIQ, Orgcouncil.com, Jostens, ProPublica, etc..). The bottom line is this reek of liberal elitism and taking a derogatory action against a well-established Independent Baptist seminary that has been around for over 40 years with over 30,000 graduates. Slippery slope and all seminaries not affiliated with a large liberal university could now start getting deleted in en masse. This would be a terrible precedent to start. Make way for Tigers (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll ignore the ad hominen remarks and seeing as how you are a relative newbie, I'll try to explain why this topic fails our guidelines. Claims such as "been around for 40 years with over 30,000 graduates" does not mean the organization meets our criteria and whoever closes this AfD will only look at reasoning based on our guidelines. First off, the quantity of coverage is irrelevant - more sources does not mean "better" nor means the topic is notable. Here are the main sections you need to understand.
  • Since this topic is an organization, WP:SIRS requires that *each* reference (that is used to establish notability) must meet all the criteria, and we require multiple sources that contains significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth".
  • WP:ORGDEPTH requires deep or significant coverage that provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. It also provides examples of trivial coverage to include simple listings or compilations, standard notices, announcements, routine coverage of meetings or changes in the organization, etc.
  • WP:ORGIND requires that for a reference to count towards establishing notability, it must contain "Independent Content". That is original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, so references that rely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, anything which originates from the company and where the journalist/publication does not add anything original that is also in-depth and about the organization, fails ORGIND.
Most of the examples you've provided falls under trivial coverage. A list of members. A listing from the Academia website which appears to allow anybody to create a listing and upload documents (no oversight). A listing of their tax status and their statutory financial returns. The Albany Herald article relies entirely on an interview with Hayes and has no "Independent Content" containing in-depth information on the topic org. There's nothing here that meets our criteria. HighKing++ 18:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a 41 year-old college or university which issues doctorate degrees. The article includes references from WP:RS journals such as The Christian Century (Vol. Nº 130, Issue #4) and The Christian Century Christian Higher Education (Vol N. 3, Issue #2), for example. As a degree-granting post-secondary institution, there is no reason to delete the article. XavierItzm (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The degrees issued by this seminary are unrecognised by appropriate accrediting agencies, as are all other qualifications they provide. As for the references from 'The Christian Century', they do not appear to constitute 'significant coverage' as defined in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Just more mentions in passing, as have already been provided. When this AfD was started, I was unsure whether the seminary would meet the notability criteria, and repeated attempts to assert notability based around such meagre sourcing suggests to me that the required in-depth coverage doesn't actually exist. Accordingly, since I've not said so explicitly before, I am !voting delete. Notability has to be demonstrated, not simply asserted. In this case, it hasn't been, and I see no prospect that it will be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again with the whole non-accredited attacks. The fact is up until a few months ago the seminary was an affiliate of Association for Biblical Higher Education, and the ABHE discontinued the program for all affiliates (inexplicably and without notice based on what I could research on the internet). So what happened to the affiliates=It left all 80+ seminaries/bible colleges scrambling to do something with their accreditation ASAP. For example, this is true of both Louisiana Baptist University (LBU) and Andersonville Baptist Seminary (and both institutions have upped their game big time recently in terms of quality). Why don't you cut these evangelical Baptist seminaries a break (I'm sorry they don't meet the ivory tower standards that Wikipedia enforces with its Liberal Fascism). These Independent Baptist schools are just trying to train some pastors and save them some money. Don't take punitive action against Andersonville and LBU because ABHE pulled a shifty move to the detriment of 80+ former ABHE affiliates (It's just not right in my opinion). Make way for Tigers (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've come across someone simultaneously asking people to 'cut them a break' while calling them 'fascists' before. A novel approach, but not going to get anywhere, since policy doesn't permit cutting breaks. Or calling people fascists - the latter is however liable to get you blocked from further participation in this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course policy permits cutting people a break; it's called WP:IAR.StAnselm (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR is supposed to be applied "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". And as you are no doubt well aware, its application is rare, frequently controversial, and liable to be reversed unless very well justified. I don't think that anyone would get far arguing that WP:N should be ignored because someone has just called us fascists. Good luck with that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Woah there buddy - I believe the Wikipedia community is guilty of prestige whoring and enforcement of a leftist agenda (which constitutes the enforcement of Liberal Fascism). But was not attacking you personally as a fascist. Make way for Tigers (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have reviewed the article, checked for additional sourcing online, and read through this discussion. The keep arguments boil down to: sources must exist (WP:MUSTBESOURCES), the age of the school (WP:ITSOLD), the fact that it is a real school (WP:ITEXISTS), and the number of graduates (WP:BIGNUMBER). The keep arguments are not in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. None of the keep rationales so much as suggest notability, let alone explain how the article demonstrates notability. WP:NSCHOOL is clear that if we consider a seminary a university-adjacent program (being a graduate-level theological institution), that it must satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ORG. If however we consider it a for-profit institution, it must satisfy WP:NCORP. I'm not going to put forward an argument about which it would fall under, because the end result is the same: it fails every notability guideline that could apply to it. There's plenty of primary/non-independent sources and trivial coverage, but nothing of substance that demonstrates notability for the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability must be demonstrated with actual identified sources, not hypothetical sources that might exist. Arguments to age, existence or number of graduates are unpersuasive. The most promising source, the Christian Higher Education article, only lists the article subject in a single table, not even mentioning it in prose. Appears to fail notability criteria whether judged by NSCHOOL, NCORP or GNG. -Ljleppan (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Excessive use of primary sources. Gusfriend (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacks in-depth coverge in reliable, independent sources. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andersonville_Theological_Seminary&oldid=1100737964"