Talk:Washington Adventist University/Archive 1

Negative note
I am not against including a negative note about this college, but why isn't it at the end of a long article on the good things about CUC? This article needs a lot of work. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 20:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot of articles in wikipedia need a lot of work - see, for example, here for a list. It probably isn't that helpful to post a comment on a talk/discussion page that an article needs a lot of work -- better to spend that time actually improving the article, even a little bit.  John Broughton 18:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"At a Glance" section
The "At a Glance" was copied from the college website. I have removed this text from the article. The website does not assert copyright, but that's a given whether they do so or not, nor does it provide any sort of free-use license. Even if we were allowed to use the text, we shouldn't use it as-is. It reads like an advertisement, not an encyclopedia. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The text has since re-appeared, and I've deleted it again. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Pollution
This section is important to this article because it is a serious accusation regarding the college's place in the community. Clearly, someone who'd like to whitewash this part of the college's history has decided to delete this section. If that person would like to delete that section again, I suggest that they register, sign in, and make their case on this page. Otherwise I will continue to revert deletions of the pollution section.FoamParty 06:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * IMHO, this section should be removed. The article is about a college. The pollution incident is something minor and historical from the nonacademic building and grounds department(!). There is an undue weight question about mentioning it at all, let alone in a paragraph that is comparable in size to the entire main article. Lou Sander 14:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree with the individual who stated that the article is supposed to be about the college. I'd also agree that this article will lessen in importance over time as it becomes less time-relevant news. During my edits I left it for now even though this is last year's news.Djneufville (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the college, the college became compliant as with State approval with their rain-water drain issue in '07. I am trying to get a date of when this occured.  So at any rate, as this is '06/'07 news which appears to now be closed, I'd vote to remove this pollution news note soon as old news perhaps as this news will soon be two years old and apparently is no longer an issue.  The article will then be focussed on the school as some have noted is needed.  Let us know if folks agree or disagree... Djneufville (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is time to get rid of the pollution material. Lou Sander (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Waited for as much response. Based on the feedback and that this news item is a couple of years old, and apparently no longer an issue, this article will be about the college and the news note is removed as of today.  Discussion remains open on if folks want to bring this back to this article.Djneufville (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Student Association —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.45.89 (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Name Change
Columbia Union College will soon begin operating as Washington Adventist University. Please be prepared for this transition.DZadventiste (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I will be proceeding to add the tags in a bit. I am proposing that the Atlantic Union College be merged into this article since it has been taken over by WAU. The other option would be to remane the Atlantic Union College article to read Washington Adventist University - South Lancaster Campus which appears to be the name it will be taking IF the takeover is successful and approved. Sources for the takeover are on the AUC article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.218.140 (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This in no way should be merged! It operated for almost 130 years, was a separate institution, and is therefore notable. As for the name issue, I would consult others before moving it. I am removing the tag because it makes no sense whatsoever. Just because something merges doesn't mean that it should be merged into the article of the thing that took it over. That idea is quite ludicrious because it just ends up creating more confusion in the end, such as how some banking articles would be extremely large if they contained the articles of the smaller banks that they bought up over the years. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)