Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puritan Reformed 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 keep. Or "nomination withdrawn". Pick whichever you want. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary[edit]

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

Issue 1. WP:COI Violation article ~~was created by~~ edited by IP editor registered to the organization that the article is about strongly suggesting that this is a promotional article that otherwise wouldn't have been created. Issue 2. The Seminary fails WP:GNG, none of the sources cited nor none that I could find while doing a google test of the name are independent of the organization or it's affiliated body thus failing the "Sources" clause of GNG as well as the "Independent of the subject" clause. Issue 3. Organization's accreditation isn't nationally recognized, they have a staff of 3 people (none of which pass WP:N from what I can gather) Issue 4. Per WP:SOAP Wikipedia isn't for advertising and as such the policy clearly states "Article topics must be third-party verifiable" which this article is not. Wikipedia isn't for self-promotion either. Wikipedia is not a mirror of links or information which this article appears to be (cites own website, copies information from own website, references own websites). Issue 5. Sources on article and those readily available on the web fail WP:RS Nefariousski I withdraw this AFD nomination. The article has undergone major work and I would like to thank all those who have put effort into finding reliable sources that establish notability, adding content and fixing primary sourcing issues. Nefariousski (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This Google News archive search shows many references in reliable sources. This states that it has been granted accreditation by the Association of Reformed Theological Seminaries]. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That group is a small group of churches that was formed for the sole purpose of creating a handful of seminaries. Not saying it's not accredited at all, it's just not accredited by any accreditation body that is recognized outside of that small group. Anyone can form an accreditation body. Would you mind pointing out some sources that are independent of the subject that actually meet WP:RS?? Nefariousski (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see all the sources are self published, questionable, affiliated with the organization, have no editorial oversight etc... all of which make them fail WP:RS Nefariousski (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe some sources that are in English? The only source that is currently listed (aside from the school's own website) looks to be a dutch religious blog that is used to source that the place exists and is located in Michigan. Nefariousski (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even though the User who brought this claim for deletion changed their original claim that this wiki article was created by an IP registered to the organization, (now it says that it has been "edited by IP editor registered to the organization") -- they are still incorrect. I am not sure why these claims are being put forward because they are so easy to check, yet these false claims can have the effect of creating doubt already in a person's mind as to the legitimacy of this article. Here is the correct date: There are 4 IP's that have edited this page, three of them only once each, and the other 4 times. The first IP edit was almost a year after the article was created in March of 2007. Running a geolocate on these 4 IP's, not a single one of them has any known connection to the organization in the article, and certainly none of them are "registered to the organization that the article is about" (as the current claim stands) (see IP's locations: [1], [2], [3], and, [4]). Please, if you are going to make an accusation, do your work first and confirm that what you are saying is correct. Thank-you, SAE (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Mike Cline (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 1st, The nomination for deletion (as it is stated) is invalid. User Nefariousski claims a violation, that the "article was created by IP editor registered to the organization that the article is about" This is not true. A registered user created the sight, "17:16, March 6, 2007 Anton14 (talk | contribs)." 2nd, a quick search finds plenty of independent sources. 3rd, the staff is more than 3 people, but what does that have to do with it? Finally, I question User Nefariousski's motives. I believe this User is re-acting to another debate on Creation according to Genesis, and has come here to now to agitate a user ip that he/she is having a disagreement with in that article. SAE (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me the independent sources (meaning they aren't affiliated with the seminary or the organization that created it)? Maybe we executed different searches but I'm pretty sure there's no news coverage or other source that has editorial review or the other criteria in WP:RS that provides valuable information? The article itself says there are three fulltime staff as do the sources. As for my motives, how does an AFD for a seminary have anything to do with a debate on replacing the phrase "creation myth"? I'm hoping you'll assume good faith on this one and discuss the article on its own merits and not jump to some silly conclusion of bad faith since I could just as easily jump to some conclusion that you came here from the same debate to agitate me (keeping in mind that I don't make any such claim nor do I personally feel that is the case). Nefariousski (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Swift and the fact that I find most WP:COI claims as objectionable hip shots that are making very serious allegations usually without an iota of rationale evidence.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2010 (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.