Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Reformed Theological Seminaries

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. - Bobet 13:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Association of Reformed Theological Seminaries

An unrecognized "accreditor", 178 yahoo hits, second hit is wikipedia article, and article asserts nothing. Arbusto 20:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This article is useful for putting articles on the member schools of ARTS in context. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Only one non-list mainspace article links to it; its usefulness in terms of promoting context is limited, at best. The article focuses mostly on what it is not, rather than what it is, which appears to be a function of the fact that we don't have enough reliable sources to write about it with strict verifiability. The fact that it is unaccredited can be very easily handled with a simple mention in whatever articles it is mentioned in. In the meantime, we have a perpetual stub on hand. Captainktainer * Talk 14:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the Captain explained. CaliEd 16:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete one school connected with it, no notablity, and questionable. Nickieee 20:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are nine schools connected with it. See http://www.artseminaries.org/members.htm for a list. It is entirely possible that other editors will contribute articles about the other seminaries receiving unrecognized accreditation from the Association of Reformed Theological Seminaries without realizing that the Association of Reformed Theological Seminaries is unrecognized. Keeping this article would help place future articles about members of ARTS in context. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment And when we have enough material that meets our policy for reliable sources for such institutions, and when we've written up stubs that meet Wikipedia policies for all of them, perhaps we can revisit this article; in general, articles are not protected against recreation when the deletion is not related to a living person or a constant troll-magnet. In the meantime, this article is a perpetual stub that focuses on what the subject is not, rather than what it is. I, for one, think it would not be wonderful to have an encyclopedia wherein most articles consist of saying "This person is not an elephant, Godzilla, Tom Cruise, Emmylou Harris, or M80", because we don't have enough material to write with strict verifiability about what it is. Captainktainer * Talk 21:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete for now The article should probably exist, but it's so vague and empty (and full of negatives, Cap'n) that it's not actually useful. Maybe the best course would be to delete for now, and come back with a better article. Maybe a little [WP:Vanity] would be OK, since they themselves might know what they actually do and stand for. Some of those seminaries have articles (like Geneva_Reformed_Seminary, but they don't mention it. Are they just conservative Presbyterians? I'm not sure from the article or the webpage. --GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 05:28, 9 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.