Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitefield College

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. Deizio talk 19:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Whitefield College

Unnotable unaccredited school created by an IP in August 2005. I get 2,500 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 00:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete does not explain its importance, does not have verifiability. NN.--Andrew c 01:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if references added before end of AfD to satisfy WP:V. It's a good idea to have articles on places like this to help people thinking about going to these schools make better decisions (-: JYolkowski // talk 01:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Because this place lacks notability it lacks sources. Thus, the article will always be about what it isn't (accredited) and what its website claims. It fails WP:V. For instance can you tell us how many students attend? One, two, or a million? Arbusto 01:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If someone adds references before end of AfD it'll no longer fail WP:V. JYolkowski // talk 22:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The article has been up since August 2005, and no one has added any references of notability. Rather IPs have been constantly white washing accreditation issues. Arbusto 23:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. There's no reason to list unnotable unaccredited schools. Vectro 02:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Emeraude 10:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Storkk 12:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a college, it is notable. It claims to be affiliated with a major religious body. Even unaccredited diploma mills can be notableEdison 16:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 1) So what if it claims to be part of a religious organization? Every church isn't notable. 2) That isn't sourced. Arbusto 04:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Delete per nom.
  • Comment: So I must have been paying no attention to what I typed yesterday. I meant to type delete in the first place. Thank you Arbusto for noticing and letting me know. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This appears to be a legitimate seminary, founded in 1980. Searching on 'Whitefield Theological Seminary' on Google brings up a number of pages of references, many of them listings on the CVs of faculty at other seminaries. This does not seem to be a diploma mill, and neither is it an accredited college - it is a Christian seminary, for training ministers and religious workers. We have articles on high schools and elementary schools, why not on seminaries? --Brianyoumans 05:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please supply sources for notability. Wikipedia WP:V does not keep articles based on what "appears to be a legitimate". How many students attend? Is this bigger than a high school? Can you compare it to a high school? Does it have classrooms? Is it ran out of an apartment? Do the teachers have accredited degrees? How many teachers are there? Why isn't it accredited? Source for claiming its not a diploma mill? Etc etc. Without such issues to be judged with WP:V independent from the place itself such as article will be about what it isn't (accredited) and what the group claims to be. That is not how article should be written.

Oh yeah, we don't keep all high schools and elemnetary schools. So that's not a reason to keep. Arbusto 07:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the length of the following; you asked for some verifiable information. I think most of the following is too trivial to include in the article, but it all contributes to my sense that this is a legitimate institution, in existence for some years. First: looking at the catalog (catalog download) this is in fact a "distance learning" sort of thing - they send lecture tapes out to students, who work with a mentor agreed on with the seminary. It doesn't appear to be that large - their administrative bulliten lists something around 100 graduates. Here is a list of some graduates that I found online:

Kenneth Gentry and George Scipione, faculty members, Southern California Center for Christian Studies. (Scipione is also an associate pastor at Bayview Orthodox Presbyterian Church).

David W. Hall, adjunct faculty, Knox Theological Seminary; Presbyterian pastor in Powder Springs, GA

Kevin M. Backus, adjunct professor, Western Reformed Seminary; an editor of the Christian Observer (“the Reformed Journal of Record since 1813”)

Mary Drabik (Provost), Joseph Guadagnino (faculty), South Florida Bible College and Theological Seminary

David Brame, Reginald Kimbro, and John Wagner, faculty, Geneva Reformed Seminary

R. C. Sproul, founder, Highlands Study Center, Bristol, VA

Richard C. Barcellos, faculty, Reformed Baptist Seminary

W. Gary Crampton, author of at least 10 books on theology, speaker

Frank Walker, faculty, City Seminary of Sacramento; associate pastor, Covenant Reformed Church in Sacramento, CA

Chuck Baynard, pastor of Clover Evangelical Presbyterian Church, an editor of the Christian Observer (“the Reformed Journal of Record since 1813”), faculty at Whitefield.

It is perhaps also notable that Whitefield is listed here in a listing of ‘’Options for Traditional Anglican Theological Seminary Education’’ on the website of “Diocese of the Holy Cross”, a group of traditional Anglicans in the US. --Brianyoumans 21:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I fail to understand how lists of people of an unaccredited online "college" have to do with WP:RS and WP:V. Can you show this is notable? Or why we should care that "faculty" at other unaccredited schools have online degrees from Whitefield.

If you have sources to show notability or WP:V please add them to the article, and I'll withdraw this nomination.Arbusto 00:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

First, I think this shows is that this is not a diploma mill; these look like pretty respectable people, I don't think they would all be claiming phony degrees. Second, although the school doesn't have many graduates, it appears to be fairly important within its little Reformed community - 2 of the editors of the Christian Observer (out of about 20) have degrees from this school, and lots of faculty at other seminaries.

Another point I think should be understood here: you are constantly pointing out that the school is unaccredited. The school IS accredited, by the only organization that it cares about, namely the Reformed Presbyterian Church, which recognizes it as a valid training school for pastors (from the catalog). The school states clearly in the same catalog that it does not have secular accreditation and that credits taken there may be invalid elsewhere. Brianyoumans 05:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have noticed that Arbusto has a habit of nominating for deletion pages relating to religious institutions. Some of these articles have needed deletion, and I have voted to delete them. On some of them, it seems like he has not 'done his homework' in advance, and has nominated pages that ended up being kept. Sometimes, also, he can be quite, er, robust in his defence of his nominations. I would advise people to look closely at pages that Arbusto nominates for deletion, and to not be intimidated by his responses. --Brianyoumans 06:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I nominate unnotable unaccredited schools: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International School of Management (ISM) and unnotable diploma mills: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/École supérieure Robert de Sorbon/ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Clements University. There is a larger collection of these religious institutions that fail WP:V than places that are diploma mills, example, that lack WP:V. Thus, they get nominated more often.

I got a better idea. Why not give sources that PROVE this is notable instead of trying to attack me. If you can show its notable, I'll withdraw the afd. Arbusto 07:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if my comment seemed like a personal attack. I have been semi-away from Wikipedia for a little while, and the last time I encountered AFDs from you was about a month ago, when you were trying to get rid of 3 professors at Dallas Baptist Theological Seminary - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Underwood, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrell Bock, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John D. Hannah - two bestselling authors and a well-known historian of theology, all 3 of which survived AFD (Hannah just barely.) Certainly, everyone who nominates articles for deletion has their failures - I have myself - but I thought this was a notable enough pattern to mention. --Brianyoumans 17:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those two failed. So what? They ended up getting well-sourced and proved notability. Further, here is a afd I withdrew Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Clements University recently. I withdrew it once clear and cut evidence of its WP:V was demonstrated. This evidence meant a drastic change it the article.[1] Arbusto 00:12, 16 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.