Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tucson Theological Seminary
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 no consensus. NW (Talk) 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tucson Theological Seminary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It does not appear that this institution meets WP:ORG yet, at least so far as third party sources confirm. Neither a search of Google News nor a search of Google Books reveals any potential sources. A search of Google Scholar only brings up self-published course syllabi. Though the school apparently is not accredited, it appears that the school would like to seek accreditation. Perhaps when it is built-up a little more and farther along that path, the school will be sufficiently notable. On a related note, it appears that the article's creator Tusconts might have a COI which possibly explains some of the non-NPOV text that was in older versions of the article. Novaseminary (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It awards degrees, so it is notable. Standard practice here. Writing the article properly is a question for editing. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Awarding degrees shouldn't alone make an institution notable. Not that I am suggesting this seminary is a diploma mill, but diploma mills award degrees. There must be more to notability than that. I cannot imagine that every non-proft school that has ever awarded a degree meets the first and second requirements of WP:CLUB for that reason alone. In addition, it is a new school and may not have yet awarded any degrees. We don't know, there is no third party coverage. Novaseminary (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - awards post-graduate degrees which consensus indicates brings notability. TerriersFan (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that apply even to un-accredited schools? Surely anybody can "award" degrees. Without accreditation, they are meaningless.YobMod 12:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of reliable sources that establish notability. (Zero google news hits, and google seems to only turn up short blurb-reviews of online degrees.) True, we typically consider degree-granting schools notable, but that's because there are typically RS for the. There don't appear to be reliable sources here, which isn't too surprising since they aren't accredited. Bfigura (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, we consider high schools and eveything above them notable, and this is definitely such a school. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- there's no clear policy saying "we keep high schools and above" (see failed proposal at Wikipedia:Notability_(schools)). The WP:ORG guidelines specifically claim to apply to educational institutions, and require (largely) the same significant, reliable sources as WP:N, which this article fails. However, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education indicates that the emerging consensus on AfD is that "high schools [are] being kept except where they fail verifiability." I take that to mean that the article will be kept providing that the school can be verified to exist. The school's homepage would appear to clear that bar. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- These are all good points and this is a close case. This article differs from most high school articles in several ways, though. High schools- at least public high schools and many private high schools- are presumably accredited (though a high school losing accreditation or state recognition could be notable for that very reason). Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education still requires high school pass verifiability. And WP:Verifiability requires reliable third party sources for an article to pass verifiability. For high schools this is probably not a problem (hence the lack of further discussion of that criterion for high schools). I imagine even not-yet-built high schools have garnered at least some local newspaper coverage. So far nobody has put forth any reliable third party coverage of this institution. Novaseminary (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V is different from both WP:RS and WP:N; it doesn't require any fixed number or quality of sources, merely that the sources provided are reliable enough to back the claims made in the article. It would be a tough argument to make that the webpage of the school is an insufficient source to back the claim that the school exists, regardless of the fact it may not be independent. (See also WP:SELFPUB) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Verifiability must mean more than that such an institution exists. Existence does not equal notability. And we all seem to agree that the article violates the notability requirements of WP:ORG. Further, verifiability relates directly to an article's notability. True, WP:V is different than WP:RS and WP:N. But, according to WP:V: "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Sure there is no fixed number of third-party sources required, but there must be more than zero. While existence alone does not make for notability, the lack of existence of third party sources does make for a failure of verifiability. And from WP:SELFPUB: self published sources about a subject may be used so long as "5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." In sum, the article seems to violate WP:V and WP:SELFPUB even as you present them. And nobody disagrees that the article violates WP:ORG, though some editors apparently disagree with WP:ORG or are willing to modify it for some subset of articles. It is not like we would be condeming the school to never having a Wikipedia page if we agree to delete it now. If and when it becomes notable and that fact can be verified there will be no problem. Novaseminary (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Verifiability is not a subset of notability. Verifiability is about whether the facts in the article are supported by sufficiently reliable sources. Notability is whether the facts, and the sources, amount to the standards at WP:N. A completely non-notable article can be completely verifiable. (eg "Joe Bloggs is a student at Generic High School."). But I'm changing my vote to delete anyway for the reasons set out below. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Verifiability must mean more than that such an institution exists. Existence does not equal notability. And we all seem to agree that the article violates the notability requirements of WP:ORG. Further, verifiability relates directly to an article's notability. True, WP:V is different than WP:RS and WP:N. But, according to WP:V: "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Sure there is no fixed number of third-party sources required, but there must be more than zero. While existence alone does not make for notability, the lack of existence of third party sources does make for a failure of verifiability. And from WP:SELFPUB: self published sources about a subject may be used so long as "5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." In sum, the article seems to violate WP:V and WP:SELFPUB even as you present them. And nobody disagrees that the article violates WP:ORG, though some editors apparently disagree with WP:ORG or are willing to modify it for some subset of articles. It is not like we would be condeming the school to never having a Wikipedia page if we agree to delete it now. If and when it becomes notable and that fact can be verified there will be no problem. Novaseminary (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V is different from both WP:RS and WP:N; it doesn't require any fixed number or quality of sources, merely that the sources provided are reliable enough to back the claims made in the article. It would be a tough argument to make that the webpage of the school is an insufficient source to back the claim that the school exists, regardless of the fact it may not be independent. (See also WP:SELFPUB) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I understand correctly, the school seems not to be accredited yet. I would propose that colleges and universities be considered notable if they either are regionally accredited, or are notable for not being accredited. Neutral regarding notability under current policy. Bwrs (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Until and unless it's accredited, I don't think we can give this the usual benefit of the doubt we give to community institutions like schools. Given that, fails WP:ORG, which is the only remaining prong for notability testing. RayTalk 23:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - (changed from weak keep) per the differentiation from high schools outlined by Bwrs and RayAYang above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Deserves an entry because it is notable for being one of the few seminaries in the Southern Arizona region. Madmaxmarchhare (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- The subject only "deserves" an article if it meets the criteria for inclusion. AfD discussions are supposed to be based on policy. What policy supports this position? Novaseminary (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Madmaxmarchhare may be referring to WP:N. The final word on notability is "Article topics are required to be notable, or "worthy of notice"." WP:N then goes on to establish guidelines for a presumption of notability. While failing to meet those guidelines is a very strong indicator of non-notability, it's theoretically possible under WP:N for a topic to be notable without meeting the guidelines, and Madmaxmarchhare is making such a case. (See WP:FAILN - the absence of sources is not a barrier to notability where there is a reasonable suspicion such sources may exist but remain undiscovered.) Madmaxmarchhare is essentially arguing that, as one of the few seminaries in the Southern Arizone region, someone's bound to have commented on it somewhere, and our inability to find those sources may be due to our internet-bias or some other factor. (I'm not saying it's a good argument - it's a pretty weak one - just that it's not inherently contrary to policy.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- That is a fair point and a good presentation of what Madmaxmarchhare meant (or should have meant). I agree, though, it is pretty weak in this case, if not always in other cases. Novaseminary (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Madmaxmarchhare may be referring to WP:N. The final word on notability is "Article topics are required to be notable, or "worthy of notice"." WP:N then goes on to establish guidelines for a presumption of notability. While failing to meet those guidelines is a very strong indicator of non-notability, it's theoretically possible under WP:N for a topic to be notable without meeting the guidelines, and Madmaxmarchhare is making such a case. (See WP:FAILN - the absence of sources is not a barrier to notability where there is a reasonable suspicion such sources may exist but remain undiscovered.) Madmaxmarchhare is essentially arguing that, as one of the few seminaries in the Southern Arizone region, someone's bound to have commented on it somewhere, and our inability to find those sources may be due to our internet-bias or some other factor. (I'm not saying it's a good argument - it's a pretty weak one - just that it's not inherently contrary to policy.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't think accreditation is needed. Fight the power! ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2009 (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.