Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. H. Carroll Theological Institute

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. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] B. H. Carroll Theological Institute

Unaccredited, unnotable "institute" started in 2003[1] Article asserts no notablity. A search of "Carroll Theological Institute" at yahoo brings 337 yahoo hits with 2 wikipedia articles in the first ten hits. Fails WP:CORP. Arbusto 01:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Over 1100 google hits excluding wikipedia/mirrors. Ironically, the article you link to provides strong support for claims of notability, as it places the founding of the school within the historical context of struggles within the Baptist leadership of Texas. The information that the school is not accredited would be extremely useful to people considering enrolling. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi

I get 1,020 for "Carroll Theological Institute" at google including the wiki article and mirrors as the second thur fifth hits. How is it notable? Because the "Associated Baptist Press" (not to be confused with Associated Press) wrote an article? What's the ABP circulation? Arbusto 04:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I get 1,260 general hits with the WP mirrors, and those boil down to only 216 distinct Ghits. The article makes no attempt to show notability, and without sources appears to be original research. The article makes no statements about any struggles for Baptist leadership, nor historical context. I do note the "Associated Baptist Press" claims in their ad rates they have 80,000 paid subscribers with an estimated readership of 200,000. Fine, but WP:CORP (the closest guidelines I can find) requires multiple non-trivial third-party articles to establish notability, and I'm only finding church newsletters and blogs for the rest of it. In any case, per the ad sheet the ABP is a church organ (sorry, couldn't resist the pun) and not a third-party. Tychocat 11:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand this article into something useful and correct. As it stands, it stinks and it's a link farm for degree mill links. - JD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jack Delay (talk • contribs).
• Comment: New user/possible role account for an unaccredited religious "school". Arbusto 01:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. But Arbusto, what does that comment mean??? Ogdred 03:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The institute is not yet notable enough to have its own article. A news article by a major news organization might have been convincing enough to give this article a chance, but the not-so-well-known Biblical Recorder doesn't do it for me. -- tariqabjotu 01:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, not interesting. Half the article is an ad and the other half is about its lack of accreditation. I swear I've seen this on AfD before (or has there been a rash of unaccredited theology schools up lately?) Opabinia regalis 04:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes! You saw it in yesterday's AfD. I think rbusto really wants rid of it... --Ogdred 04:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I've listed a few unaccredited institutions in the last few days. Including the current two at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Clements University. Arbusto 05:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of neutral independent sources. There are notable unaccredited schools, this does not appear to beone of them. Guy 12:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand The article appeared to be fine until, if you'll note the history, a few ofthe voting editors here came in and deleted most of it. Shazbot85^Talk 20:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: As Dlohcierekim alluded to, how does this meet notablity standards at WP:CORP? Arbusto 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Only 216 unique Google hits. Nothing at Google News. The question here is not the quality or quantity of the article but the notability of the subject. :) Dlohcierekim 21:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete More like an unaccredited religious academy operating out of a suite. Firstly, website lacks a .edu, signaling a non-government authorized educational entity. Secondly, I question this Theological Institute's .org status.Hellwing 23:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete little outside information indicates verifiability issues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete promo of nonaccredited institute, i.e., "institute". Mukadderat 23:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if we can spare 3KB for every pokemon card known to mankind... we can spare 2KB for a real verifiable place.  ALKIVAR™ 00:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

But the issues is WP:V, and WP:CORP notability. Without WP:V to verifiy what it is the article will be bastion of POV, and what it isn't (accredited). If this institute becomes notable and has valuable sources then the article should be recreated, but until then the article lacks WP:V which does no favors to the instiute. Arbusto 20:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't have a problem with us documenting known diploma mills so long as we specify that these institutions are not accredited. Silensor 00:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:CORP (if any more detailed evidence of the institute being important in the intra-Baptist struggles that made it into non-Baptist press then I may consider changing my attitude). JoshuaZ 01:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As a Jew, I cannot possibly understand all the nuances that went into creating this school. But a thorough read through the articles regarding the school shows that it is quite genuine and was created to meet a perceived need for a new type of school. That a new school is not accredited by a well-known accrediting agency does not make it a diploma mill. Nor do I find it at all unusual that the mainstream press hasn't latched on to this school as a subject for articles that would confer the notability so many feel it would be given. Despite the lack of traditional news coverage, the articles provided and available online provide clear satisfaction of WP:V . I find the use of "scare quotes" and other derogatory suppositions regarding its nonaccreditation making it a suspected diploma mill to be a staggering violation of WP:AGF. I have few doubts regarding the notability of this institution, but many regarding those who are so quick to delete it based on entirely unsupported suppositions and original research. Alansohn 03:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• A new kind of school? Unaccredited bible colleges offering worthless degrees are a dime a dozen. Guy 00:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the reply to prove my point about good faith violations. These folks seem to have a genuine interest in teaching folks their version of Baptist theology as they understand it. I've seen ads for diploma mills, all of which read "send in a check we'll send you a sheepskin." If you take a look at the school's admission requirements, they're doing a very poor job of attracting only those who just want a phony credential. I see no evidence (nor has anyone offered any) implying that they're pushing paper, and not their brand of gospel. I find the school notable and verifiable, and I can at least respect challenges to the issue, even if I disagree. But, other than that, all I see are rampant violations of WP:AGF. Alansohn 03:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment AGF applies to users and their actions. AGF has absolutely nothing to do with assuming the school is acting in good faith. JoshuaZ 03:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I agree 100%. I see people deciding to delete this article because they have presumed that the article was created to push a diploma mill. The bad faith demonstrated regarding the institution itself is just gravy (bordering on bigotry). Alansohn 03:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please per alahnsohn notability is not doubted here by me either Yuckfoo 05:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: If notability isn't doubted by you then explain how it passes WP:CORP? Around 200 google hits and article asserts nothing.Arbusto 07:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yuckfoo is an inclusionist. I think this is being Gastroturfed. Guy 00:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and this several in the last few weeks to get attacked. I am compiling evidence to end this though. Arbusto 00:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Alansohn; the article is informative, neutrally presented, and verifiable as it stands. Yamaguchi先生 22:35, 18 September 2006 (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.