Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity School of Apologetics & Theology

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. (aeropagitica) 13:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trinity School of Apologetics & Theology

An unaccredited"school" that offers free courses, and charges for "admission fees." It brings up 149 yahoo hits, including wikipedia. Fails to meet notablity ot verfiablity. Article created by someone who made three edits. This is violates WP:AD and fails WP:V and WP:CORP. Arbusto 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment what about the other articles in this category? User:Yy-bo 21:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What category? Arbusto 00:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep We generally keep articles on colleges, we often keep articles on diploma mill so that people can learn that they are diploma mills. I don't know if the commentor meant Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning or Category:Unaccredited seminaries and theological colleges, both of which are on the article, but that we have both says something about the degree to which such articles are kept. GRBerry 02:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: We often keep notable diploma mills. This one has no notablity. Has anyone written about this place other than the creator of it? Arbusto 02:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete appears to be a just-about-verifiable but insignificant diploma mill. Absent evidence of notable "alumni" claiming status of degrees from here, we probably don't need to give it the oxygen of publicity (or indeed take on the inevitable headache of policing neutrality). Guy 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete There is nothing notable or verifable. I can set up this type of "school" and promote on wikipedia in a similiar way. No news sources, alumni, academic standing, accreditation, and so on. CaliEd 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It may be unaccredited, but it is very verifiable. Silensor 03:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Is it unaccredited? I originally sourced it that way in the article because I couldn't find proof it was. I have seen nothing from any source other than the founder and operator of the school. How is this wiki worthy? How many students attend? How many have graduated? What degrees are offered? Arbusto 04:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of independent reliable sources needed for verifiability. Without such sources, there's only two potential outcomes for the article: it has unverifiable promotional material for the school, or its used to included unverifiable attacks against it. Neither is acceptable. Currently we're using "source by omission", which means a Wikipedian (in violation of core policy) makes factual claims based on the *absense* of information. This is unacceptable. We can only state something (like say something is an "unaccredited school") if a reliable 3rd party sources has made such a statement. We can't do original research, without violating policy, which sadly we've done by labelling this "school" as we have. The reasons for deleting this, are somewhat similiar to the ones for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson C. Philip. --Rob 05:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I am surprised that there is no recognition or accredition in the country of origin, India. --Antorjal 05:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Rob. Nickieee 21:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There is ongoing debate on this school which makes it very interesting to watch. From what I see the school has special accreditation with the Indian government. The information that some have brought makes this legit in my view. It can be verified very easily. Just contact the people in India rather than making spurious attacks. One may not like what they offer but it is not enough to remove the information. Looks like some have a personal axe to grind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.160.71.152 (talk • contribs). 28:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The above "vote" was made by an anon. IP (207.160.71.152)[1], but linked the name "Pablo" (Note: That link went to the wikipedia article Pablo, not any user name)[2] to look like an established user. Probably the creator of this article/operator of the "school." Arbusto 14:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The school does not have "special accreditation." The "accreditor" is ran by the operator of the school, which is not verfied by any WP:RS. See School accreditation and look at India. It is not listed as an accreditor from the Department of India's Education system.[3] A non-notable diploma mill accredited by the operator of the school. This violates WP:AD and fails WP:CORP. Arbusto 14:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Dylan 02:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 05:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable non accredited school. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --- Please don't let the fact that it looks like there are citations fool you. There are not. The article is unverified. --- WilyD 13:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

 This AFD started on the 3 September page. It was relisted on the 7 September page by the original nominator with no rationale in the edit summary. Please add new discussions below this notice. GRBerry 01:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I put that I relisted these for more opinions here[4]. Arbusto 02:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V. 45 unique Ghits out of 393, the vast majority of which directories and a few other sites picking up wiki content. Appears that the only reals source of info on the organisation is the trinitytheology.org, which we are obliged to discount as unreliable. For an on-line and distance learning course, Alexa rank in the 643thousandsth appears well below radar for notability in any event. The fact that it is unaccredited is not all that relevant. Ohconfucius 01:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete There is no evidence to support the need for the article Tob55 09:40, 8 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.