Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gammon 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 merge to Interdenominational Theological Center - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gammon Theological Seminary

Unnotable unaccredited school. I get 1,700 yahoo hits including wikipedia and mirrors. Could be a great school or could be a diploma mill, either way it lacks WP:V and notability. Arbusto 00:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Its degrees are real ones. It forms part of the Interdenominational Theological Center, which is accredited by The Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) and The Association of Theological Schools in the U.S. and Canada (ATS). As a post-secondary institution, it's notable. The information is verifiable: see http://www.cau.edu/gen_info/gen_info_his.html for an explanation by Clark Atlanta University: "Also in 1883, Clark established a department, named for Dr. Elijah H. Gammon, known as Gammon School of Theology, which in 1888 became an independent theological seminary and is now part of the Interdenominational Theological Center." --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: According to the United States Department of Education Gammon Theological Seminary is NOT accredited. This afd is not about Interdenominational Theological Center, which is accredited. Moreover, Morehouse College is also part of Interdenominational Theological Center and Morehouse is listed as accredited. Why not Gammon then? Arbusto 01:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete, while it may be a real school, there is nothing in this article that isn't covered in Interdenominational Theological Center. There is no need for a spinout article, nor this stub. Please expand the parent article before creating new stubs. --Andrew c 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Post-secondary school. Merge into Interdenominational Theological Center. --- RockMFR 01:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: can you please explain what criteria specifically this article does meet? I am not familiar with what you mean by "post-secondary school". Being a post-secondary school does not in itself grant an instituation a place here in wikipedia, no?--Andrew c 01:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, there has been far too much of a sense in some places that pre-secondary schools may be inherently notable. Morgan Wick 03:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Interdenominational Theological Center. There's no reason for this piece of the organization to have its own page until its section gets too big for the main article. Vectro 02:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article belongs in Category:United Methodist seminaries. It would be messy and inaccurate to have a merged article in that category. Gammon has a distinct mission in its service to its denomination and as an historically-black institution and a distinct identity, all of which argues in favor of keeping a separate article on Gammon. This AfD started with the argument that Gammon might be a diploma mill. When it was demonstrated that Gammon isn't a diploma mill, it might have been best to have withdrawn the AfD. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment'. Diploma mills can still be notable. There isn't a criteria for deltion based on this. I commented on content forking. I see no reason to fork out this content. In fact, the parent article has much more information comparatively than the main article. The article does not say why it is notable, and shouldn't have been forked out, per guidelines. That is why it should be deleted, not because of the diploma mill claim.--Andrew c 03:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a college, it is notable.Edison 16:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. It's not notable enough to be in an article of its own. NauticaShades 20:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge is a great idea until the encyclopedic content grows to unbalance the parent article or the parent article is just too big and needs to be split. Right now, that is far, far away. GRBerry 01:00, 13 October 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.