Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City 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 no consensus. The keep side has provided a sufficient argument that the content is verifiable enough, the Sacramento Bee article certainly counts as a reliable source (and addresses many of the notability concerns), although I am somewhat disturbed with the article sourcing material to WorldNetDaily (this source should be used with caution). I am not particularly concerned about the rationale given by Unscintillating, since there is no significant contradiction between being called "City Seminary" one place and "City Seminary of Sacramento" another place. I am leaving the decision of whether to rename the article to "City Seminary of Sacramento" up to editorial discretion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

City Seminary[edit]

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

This article is about a theological school, it is small and not notable. Wikipedia is not a directory for every single school that exists on the world. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if secondary sources can not be found. Otherwise the school does have a fairly interesting story and seems to have potential as a notable topic. Borock (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course, Wikipedia is not a directory of every school. By consensus, we do not have articles about the vast majority of primary schools (elementary and middle schools). By consensus, we assume that secondary schools (high schools) are notable. The presumption that schools of higher learning are notable (such as colleges and universities) is high. In this case, we have a postgraduate theological seminary in California's capital city that makes a claim to notability, namely that it offers offers "a debt-free seminary education" to poor and minority students. There is what appears likely to be in depth coverage in the Sacramento Bee, mostly hidden behind a pay wall: New seminary a wish come true: No need to travel for degree. There is other coverage in other Central Valley newspapers. Let's allow this article to develop. Cullen328 (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It appears that the author of the article has not been informed of this AfD. Will the nominator please take care of that? Cullen328 (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 09:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even though you provided a source for the article, it does not suffice the concern about the notability of this article, because this site refers limitedly about this school and in a somewhat advertising way. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 09:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - degree awarding institutions have long been considered notable and since this college offers a post-graduate degree I see no reason to except this one. I would add that this page was AfD'd within 2 days of creation, a bad idea since it doesn't allow time for the page to develop. TerriersFan (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An examination of http://www.cityseminary.org shows that in the copyright notice in smaller print at the bottom of the page there is an organization called "City Seminary of Sacramento". But this name does not appear in the large print banner at the top of the page. Thus IMO the home page of the official web site here fails WP:EL (misleads the readers with factually inaccurate information). In terms of notability policy, identifiability is a requirement for notability and we currently cannot with WP:RS identify the name. As others here have said, there is a presumption of notability for such schools, so this is a !vote without prejudice to recreating, probably under another name and leaving this name for a dab page. Another web site mentions that the school operates under the "auspices" of a local congregation, and the school mentions their objection to being accredited, so there may continue to be difficulty even with research in Sacramento in establishing a WP:RS identity. Unscintillating (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to City Seminary of Sacramento. This is a degree-granting institution, offering bachelors and masters degrees, and as such deserves an article. ~~It is recognized as a degree-granting institution by the state of California~~ (although it is not "accredited"; California allows religious colleges to grant degrees without state accreditation). --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search on ["California Postsecondary Education Commission" "city seminary"] produced only two wikis and two sites with malware. Why do you say that this school is recognized by the State of California? Unscintillating (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that the institution does not appear on the 2010 CPEC list of institutions. I am striking out that claim as unverified. However, it remains true that California exempts religious colleges from needing state recognition. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They must APPLY for exemption. Or else diploma mills will just claim to be religious and award bogus degrees. Is this school exempt? Is it verifable with sources? HHaeyyn89 (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough. Excerpted31 (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find a reliable source that will allow readers to verify the name of the school? What is the name of the school? Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what your problem is with the name. The page you linked to, in your note above, says "City Seminary of Sacramento" consistently in the text. The banner name at the top of that page says "City Seminary Sacramento", leaving out the word "of" for stylistic reasons apparently. Your claim that "the home page of the official website misleads the readers with factually inaccurate information" is unjustified, and there isn't any ambiguity about the name. The Google listing says City Seminary of Sacramento, the Covenant Reformed Church webpage says City Seminary of Sacramento, all the directories list it that way. The name is clearly City Seminary of Sacramento, and this article should be renamed (if kept) to reflect that fact. --MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that this article is called City Seminary, that this is an unacceptable name, has no reliable sources to support it, no one supporting keeping the name, and needs to be deleted. I think that the web pages of the seminary and the host church are partly responsible for this name confounding.

However, even though you and I agree, we are arguing at cross purposes, and your own misquoting/misreading of the banner is evidence that the web page is misleading, just as I previously expressed concern. I propose that this article be moved to City Seminary of Sacramento, that City Seminary be deleted, and that a new AfD be started for City Seminary of Sacramento. My reason for supporting the tentative name is one page at cityseminary.org that requests that checks be made out to "City Seminary of Sacramento" which is evidence that there is a bank account for "City Seminary of Sacramento". However, given the word "auspices", I do not currently expect that "City Seminary of Sacramento" is a legal entity or that it has a tax status as an "association". Unscintillating (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Misquoting/misreading of the banner"? I invite anyone to look at the website [1], and confirm that the banner at the top says "City Seminary Sacramento", and the text on the page says "City Seminary of Sacramento," just as I have been saying. "The web pages of the seminary and the host church" are responsible for your confusion? The host church is completely consistent in calling it City Seminary of Sacramento. That should be the name, there is no ambiguity there.
As for your insistence that the page needs to be deleted because it has the wrong name: per Wikipedia policy, when a page that is otherwise acceptable has a name that is "inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or for a host of different housekeeping reasons," the page should be moved to a new title. Policy is NOT to delete the page and then create a new one under the new name. Among other reasons, the "move" or rename approach allows the article history to be preserved.
Funny, I was also going to cite Stanford as an example of an institution that is known by multiple names. Another example would be Notre Dame, also known as University of Notre Dame, also known as University of Notre Dame du Lac. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The website has been rewritten today. Conveniently the respondent does not mention that the website has changed. It doesn't change the fact that [the banner] was misquoted/misread as previously stated, which I tried to make a small point, but it seems that disputatiousness is of a higher priority than reaching consensus. (2) My proposal was/is to move the page, delete the old page (which is at that point a redirect), and then open a new AfD on City Seminary of Sacramento. In no way does the policy quoted go against my proposal, history is not removed, so the very act of implying that it does is a straw man argument. Again, it seems that the point here is disputatiousness.
(3) Also unexplained is the assertion that The host church web page is consistent and without ambiguity. This page twice references "City Seminary" and ~~twice~~ thrice (the title of the web page is a third case) references "City Seminary of Sacramento". Unscintillating (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion, Unscintillating's argument here is a bit pedantic. After all, we have an article Stanford University and don't insist that it be renamed "Leland Stanford Junior University" even though that's its official name. Quibbling about the absence of the word "of" from a website banner is trivial. We are dealing with two unrelated issues: Is this seminary notable? And if it is, should the article be re-named "City Seminary of Sacramento"? I say yes to both questions. Close the AfD, and rename the article. And then it will be done. Cullen328 (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone said anything about "of". But now that you mention it, someone is paying Google with a sponsored link for
"City Seminary–Sacramento". Unscintillating (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The banner for www.stanford.edu says, "Stanford University". The banner at www.cityseminary.org has changed in the last 24 hours. I think that the one at Stanford University is more reliable. Unscintillating (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is being discussed at this AfD is whether or not City Seminary is notable. Like I said, there are no reliable sources for "City Seminary" and no one is claiming that any exist. The notability theory for keeping City Seminary as a redirect is, "then it will be done". Unscintillating (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This whole name debate is irrelevant - as you said, the issue for whether to keep or delete the article is notability. But I am really having trouble following you. The banner - reading "CitySeminary" on the first line and "SACRAMENTO" in somewhat smaller type on the second line, with a small heraldic shield next to it - looks exactly the same today as it did when I first described it on April 6 (above). Furthermore, that's also exactly how it looks on your cached version from April 3. And in any case, the banner on the webpage of any school does not necessarily reflect what the school is officially called. See UCLA (actual name University of California, Los Angeles) for example. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing that the entire website has been changed, the copyright notices removed, the word "auspices" removed, style/color changes throughout the website, font changes to the banner, and a change in the banner from "CitySeminary" to "City Seminary". The Google search [site:cityseminary.org auspices] returns five hits, none of which have the word "auspices" when you try to view the current page. The descriptive text on the home page is gone. Note that the removal of the copyright notices is consistent with the hypothesis that "City Seminary of Sacramento" has no status as a legal entity. Unscintillating (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE" "change in the banner from "CitySeminary" to "City Seminary" " - is there some reason why you keep leaving out the word "Sacramento" which is part of the banner, and yet you accuse me of "misquoting/misreading" the banner? --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is anyone looking at the banner supposed to know after seeing it? Is the name of the school "City Seminary SACRAMENTO"? Is the name of the school "City Seminary" with the word "SACRAMENTO" thrown in as artwork? Is the name of the school "City Seminary–SACRAMENTO"? In the old banner we had to consider what it meant to see "CitySeminary" with "SACRAMENTO" on the next line in a different font. In the old banner is it an oblique reference to the URL of the website, again with "SACRAMENTO" thrown in as artwork? That is the point, that we are left with multiple choices when looking at the banners. Your theory that the "of" has been left out for stylistic reasons I don't find that it adds clarity for me. Unscintillating (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There not even a single source that demonstrates notablity. This fails WP:LOCAL: " If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality. If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention at all." HHaeyyn89 (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- 'Sorry, no institutions were found!

Any Institution
With a Name like "City Seminary"
Located in Sacramento County' -- http://www.cpec.ca.gov/CollegeGuide/AdvCollegeSearch.asp --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it was easy to find several articles in the Sacramento Bee. I added one on the schools opening. Someone else can add a few more. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are only THREE articles about this place in the seminary's local paper, which explains why you didn't add "others." Out of the three, only one is relevant! Those articles are: "New seminary a wish come true" from 2000 (which you added), "Lift a glass to arts at Crocker evening" from 2003 (is this article even related to the seminary?), and "Caring folks gather for a luau to help CARES fight HIV/AIDS" from 2004 (is this article relevant?). So what you said is misleading to say the least. More than that in the last 11 years there are only three articles in the local paper than even use the words "city seminary." Further, there hasn't even been ONE ARTICLE IN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS THAT USES the "CITY SEMINARY" phrase. Thus, the local paper doesn't even think this place is notable for a mention in the last seven years. Why should wikipedia keep an article about it then? HHaeyyn89 (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the original page and have found the discussion here both fascinating and informative. I can, perhaps, help clarify several issues that have been raised, but will leave it to the community to decide whether City Seminary is "notable." First of all, both "City Seminary" and "City Seminary of Sacramento" are commonly used to identify the school, although the IRS Fed Employer ID# is under "City Seminary of Sacramento." The IRS non-profit status is listed under the Reformed Church in the United States (which was founded in 1725, by the way). The question about the Postsecondary Education Commission listing is apparently moot. Yes, City Seminary was granted permission to award theological degrees in 2005, but as of January of this year, the state has discontinued the listing process (which had been transferred to the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education), so that section should be deleted in its entirety. As for "notability," we are unaware of any other theological institution in the country that has adopted the debt-free model as a matter of policy. No otherwise qualified student is denied an education due to financial inability. Different? Yes. Notable? I have no idea. I do know that this policy effectively removes the finacial barriers that have historically worked to the disadvantage of minority students, in particular. We hope someday every institution training students for the ministry would adopt this model. The school also houses the 4,000-volume personal library of the late Dean of Harvard Divinity School, Dr. John Strugnell. Dr. Strugnell served as editor in chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls translation project from 1987-1990. This collection of linguistic texts also includes one of the eight existing original "concordances" of the scrolls. I suppose were the Wikipedia community to give us a few weeks or months, we could generate several articles in the press to make us more "notable," but you are quite correct that we have not been responsible for the spilling of much ink. As one who is new to this "deletion" process, I don't know the correct way to "sign" this. My username is waynenoogen, if that helps. And thank you all for your comments. —Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep and rename to City Seminary of San Francisco. The Sacramento Bee article cited by Cullen328 above definitely counts towards significant coverage under WP:N. I also agree that articles on legitimate degree-granting institutions should generally be kept. I was leaning towards deletion per Sarek, given the fact that the State of California apparently does not have a listing for this seminary. But then I read Waynenoogen's comment, which is immediately above mine; Wayne appears to be affiliated with the seminary, and he claims that "City Seminary was granted permission to award theological degrees in 2005, but as of January of this year, the state has discontinued the listing process (which had been transferred to the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education)." So I went to the BPPE's website, but they don't have a listing for this seminary either. In other words, verifiability of this school's status as a legitimate degree-granting institution is a problem here. And yet, in spite of that problem, there are some sources here, the article in question is neutral and descriptive, and the subject is a school. As a result, being on the fence, I would prefer to err on the side of "keep" in this debate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2011 (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.