Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of TRACS members

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was no consensus, even after minus-ing sockpuppet voting. Mailer Diablo 02:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC) on hold pending sockpuppet check. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC) now referred to deletion review. (See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich, and AN/I for details). - Mailer Diablo 05:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of TRACS members

Pointless list the author created to link Christian schools. The links were removed, but the list lacks importance. TRACS has a list on their webpage, which is more accurate and informative than this control-c list. Interested parties can visit the TRACS page and link for further information. This is a POV fork after the list was removed several times. Arbusto 20:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Wiki4Christ (operated by banned user Jason Gastrich) is stated to have emailed an appeal to save this article. This may explain the large number of editors whose only previous activity was in response to Wiki4Christ's previous mailings - which is part of what got Gastrich banned in the first place. No_Jobs (talk • contribs) is currently blocked for attacks, tendentious editing and as a suspected sock of a banned user. Just zis Guy you know? 09:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

See talk page for further details.
  • Delete, a category is fine. This is just listcruft. Stifle 20:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Stifle. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Nomination was a bit disingenuous, since a prime reason was that "the list was removed several times" on the TRACS entry by Arbustoo. This list is informative and good and resembles other, such lists. Definitely keep. --Doe, John (talk • contribs) 21:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Currently blocked
  • Keep Arbusto is repeatedly seeking to delete Christian articles. Why doesn't he do that for any other religion? I can understand only adding to the stock of articles about one religion - a person may not be particularly interested in all the religions, but deleting all articles of one religion has got to put a question mark over someone's neutrality. Uncle Davey (Talk) 23:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Usenetpostsdotcom (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep Wtf is it with you people and deleting articles all the time? Itake (talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see any problem with this since we have an article on TRACS and these schools apparently exist. I also note that this nom tried to have this list speedied as patent nonsense [1], which looks like bad faith to me. Furthermore, the so called POV fork seems to have resulted from this nom's edit warring to remove the list. Lastly, what difference does it make that these are Christian schools? For all I care, they could be Jewish, Muslim, or Rastafarian. Why did that need to be immediately specified in the first words of this nom? At the very least, why aren't we talking about merging it back to TRACS? -- JJay 00:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I put the speedy tag because "this article provides no meaningful content." As for your bad faith comment, you might want to see who created the TRACS page. This is a fork that is why it is up for AfD. Arbusto 00:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well that qualifies as a significant misuse of CSD. I suggest you review CSD criteria before mistagging something as nonsense. -- JJay 00:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
You comparing TRACS to the NCAA? I fail to understand the connection. It should not be listed because (as I wrote in the nom.) "TRACS has a list on their webpage, which is more accurate and informative than this control-c list. Interested parties can visit the TRACS page and link for further information." The list is updated on the TRACS page according to schools that lost accreditation and earned accreditation. Most recently in Feb. 2006. There is no reason to think the wiki page will be updated to be accurate. Thus, the information will be incorrect and provide misleading details on school accreditation.
If this list is kept then the other accrediting agnecies will also have lists. That includes North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, which accredits 10,000 schools. Do you want a list of 10,000 schools on wikipedia pertaining to one accreditation group? Or the 13,000 schools accredited by Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, which I removed the beginnings of the list one month ago [3]. Arbusto 01:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Those are all very weak arguments. What may or may not exist on the web is not my problem. Almost every topic we cover here is covered in greater depth somewhere else. That should never be an excuse to remove content. The bottom line for me is that if we are going to do school lists such as these [4], I can find no reason to remove a list of accredited schools from a group such as TRACS for which we have a page. In my view, it is just as essential to know what institutions are under the TRACS umbrella as with any other accreditation agency. -- JJay 01:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, we'll have a list of 10,000 schools linked at North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and 13,000 at Southern Association of Colleges and Schools because you want to keep this list of around 40 schools, which only 12 have wikipedia articles.
If you want to know "know what institutions are under the TRACS umbrella" you could just visit the TRACS category or their website.Arbusto 01:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I could get all info on every topic elsewhere, but I choose to use wikipedia. Otherwise, all the lists you mentioned are good with me. For more, see response on talk page. -- JJay 01:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yep you made it very clear that you have no problem with a 13,000 school list for one accreditation group on your talk. I strongly differ. Arbusto 02:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
That would seem to make sense as you spend a lot of time nominating sometimes nominate lists for deletion. Of course, this list is a wee bit smaller that that at present. Could probably be nicely merged into TRACS, which lacks content.-- JJay 02:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
These attacks against me tiresome. One person says I am on an anti-Christian bent. Then you claim I spend my time nominating lists for deletion. One person says I am anti- this another says I am anti- that. Argue with facts, reasons and sources. Trying to attribute false motives to me doesn't help your argument. Grow up. Arbusto 02:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What attacks? What are you talking about? You nominated this for deletion and have other lists on Afd. You also indicated on my user page that you have removed other lists from wikipedia. You felt the need to say that you "strongly differ" with me on school lists using an example with no application to the current discussion and which should have been obvious given our positions. As for facts, this list has 40 schools on it, not 10,200 or 13,000. -- JJay 02:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I am talking about "you spend a lot of time nominating lists for deletion." Which is not true nor relevant. Arbusto 03:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I "sometimes nominate lists" now? That's news to me. I think I have only nominated two lists ever (this and the alpha list). Arbusto 03:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Good, then as supported by this [5], all my statements here are now perfectly factual. This list has 40 schools on it. It should be kept or merged with TRACS, so people interested can know what schools have been accredited by TRACS. -- JJay 03:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Wrong again: You are just lazy and don't really care about quality. Had you clicked on the link [6] you would have noticed I deleted the list of three schools off the article page because I didn't want the other 12,997 to be added. I did not, as you claimed, "nominate" that list for AfD. Thusly, are not "factually correct." Like I said before, its tiresome. Arbusto 03:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not going to waste anymore time arguing semantics with you. I guess I'm just lazy that way. In any case, to use your own words, you "strongly differ" with my opinions on the utility of these types of lists. You have used all kinds of arguments for why this should be deleted (pointless, POV fork, no meaningful content, misleading, list on other web site, will result in 13,000 school list, etc), none of which I agree with. Since you are highly unlikely to withdraw this nom, and I will never revise my vote, this discussion now serves absolutely no purpose. -- JJay 04:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Would work better as a category. JoshuaZ 03:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Can someone please explain to me what would be gained by having a frequently changing set as a list rather than a category? This seems like precisely the sort of thing categories are defined for. JoshuaZ 03:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with nom - pointless list. Eusebeus 07:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to TRACS --Yonghokim 07:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, better done by category, which already exists. Proto||type 08:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is exactly what categories are for. Just zis Guy you know? 09:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Either merge this with TRACS, create a category, or just keep the article.Sidious1701 12:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - there already is a category, which is at Category:Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools Proto||type 15:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Category was created after the start of this AfD. It does not include schools for which we need pages. -- JJay 21:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment That is what Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Colleges and Universities is for. Arbusto 00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps. Of course, none of the TRACS schools are included on that list. -- JJay 01:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Then you are welcome to add them to the list. JoshuaZ 01:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but they are just fine right now on this list, or even better merged to TRACS. In any case, I have no doubt that the Wikiproject missing article list will be deleted too, sooner or later, just as soon as someone nominates it. Just think, a list that encourages people to write articles on schools. Now why would we need that? -- JJay 01:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is likely to nominate a project-space article listing articles for universities which need to be created, even though lists of redlinks tend (as with the Schools project) to spawn substubs of no encycloaedic value. If this was in project space - part of the Christianity wikiproject, for example - I think it's unlikely it would have been nominated. As it stands what this list does is to duplicate the list at the TRACS website (only with much less detail and not necessarily up-to-date). Just zis Guy you know? 09:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Hayson1991 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are plenty of lists like this on wikipedia. Scifiintel (talk • contribs) 15:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree that it works better as a category, otherwise, it's a POV-driven list, as some of the "debate" indicates. - WarriorScribe 19:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - should be worked as a category. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 23:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. And expand the list of members as possible. --Shindig Me (talk • contribs) 19:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A list of TRACS schools is a good thing. --No Jobs (talk • contribs) 06:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV fork, listcruft. --Terence Ong 10:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Stifle. Guettarda 13:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per No Jobs. --Angelina Y. (talk • contribs) 17:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep I can't imagine why it should been deleted.
    ♥♥♥Gubb ✍
    17:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Gubbubu (talk • contribs)
  • Keep the article. Very good resource--Michaelwmoss (talk • contribs) 22:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I've fallen asleep. I thought the gastrich affair had died off.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete This is just more bigotry against Christians. Rookwood (talk • contribs) 23:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The blue links are so few in number they can go into a list within the main article; if the numbers grow they can be categorised. --kingboyk 23:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft that can be a category instead if it grows. Harvestdancer 16:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Stifle FloNight talk 00:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Moe ε 02:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This list adds to Wikipedia. --Jon Calla (talk • contribs) 03:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A list like this helps us keep track of TRACS members. --Nutter1 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As does the category. Which is self-maintaining, unlike this list. Just zis Guy you know? 16:47, 1 April 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_List_of_TRACS_members_fe8e.html"