Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. H. Carroll Theological Institute (2 nomination)


 * 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 no consensus, leaning towards keep. JYolkowski // talk 21:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

B. H. Carroll Theological Institute
Unnotable unaccredited "institute." I get 342 yahoo hits for "Carroll Theological Institute". This "institute" does not even have classrooms, and while its website in 2004 said it hopes to have accreditation one day, there is no independent accreditation group/board that mentions this. The last afd was "no consensus" due to inclusionists claiming two church publications make it notable. Arbusto 20:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I questioned the good faith of this AfD as soon as I saw it on my watchlist, and Arbusto did not disappoint, starting in with a baseless attack on those who voted to keep this article as "inclusionists", accompanied by the use of "scare quotes" to imply that there is something unseemly going on here. A thorough read through the published, verifiable, independently-sourced articles included in the article regarding the school shows that it is quite genuine. That a new school is not accredited by a national accrediting agency does not make it a diploma mill, nor does the timeframe in obtaining such accreditation constitute any evidence of non-notability. Despite the lack of traditional news coverage, the articles provided and available online provide clear satisfaction of every aspect required by WP:V. I find the use of "scare quotes" and other derogatory suppositions regarding those who voted to keep the article in the previous AfD to be yet another staggering violation of WP:AGF by Arbusto, and the bad faith shown in taking another stab at destroying this article so quickly to only add to the issues. Based on the sources provided, I have few doubts regarding the notability of this institution, but many regarding the nomination. Alansohn 21:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Two church sources (from 2003, 04) make it notable how? It doesn't even have a campus. Or approval to operate in the state, which is required by Texas law. Arbusto 21:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You again are falsely characterizing the sources. These are independent, verifiable and reliable sources that describe the institution and its no programs, satisfying WP:V; they are not "church sources". I know of no Wikipedia standard that requires an educational institution to have a brick-and-mortar campus; apparently, in our computer age, schools have the ability to offer classes electronically over this thing called the "Internet". The article you provide is completely and entirely accurate, but entirely irrelevant to the article in question. You again try to falsely imply that the B. H. Carroll Theological Institute is offering degrees in violation of Texas law, and provide a source that talks about some other school. What on earth do you have against this school? Alansohn 01:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Pointing out the lack of notability of the topic does not mean an editor has something "against this school". Removal of a non-notable school article from the encyclopedia is not a judgement on the school itself, but only on the appropriateness of including an article on it in the encyclopedia. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 06:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Lack of official permission to operate is by no means a barrier to mention an entity in Wikipedia, or we could not mention any rebel group, any subversive movement, or any underground operation. We only note whether there is a reliable and verifiable source to show notability. We are not a state licensing and regulatory agency. Edison 12:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unaccredited, non-notable. Even the person voting keep admits "the lack of traditional news coverage". Crabapplecove 23:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Has WP:V issues since the only sources are two partisan articles. JoshuaZ 01:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment To address the issues raised regarding WP:V, the publications listed in the article are independent and verifiable in full compliance with WP:V. The fact that they cover church-related news makes them no different from any other "industry" publication that neutrally covers a particular subject. Additionally, it was only a lack of effort that fails to turn up other sources. Google News Archive provided several additional references in such "partisan" publications as the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dallas Morning News, San Antonio Express-News, Kansas City Star and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, all of which should pass the WP:V test of even the most rabid deletionists. Alansohn 13:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, the "sources" include "Fort Worth Star-Telegram": Obituaries Oct 19, 2004 that says "Those desiring, please make memorial contributions in Dr. Drakeford's name to the BH Carroll Theological Institute", "Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The: Amen Corner Nov 22, 2003 Baptists in Texas plan to open the independent Carroll Theological Institute."
 * The Fort Worth Star-Telegram is an obituary and the only reference to this "institute" where to donate money. Is that the best WP:V you have an obituary?
 * Do you have a source that this place is legally operating. Those articles mention that "Carroll Theological Institute" will be opened in 2004. Isn't it notable enough for press coverage since its been open? Arbusto 18:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Arbusto, do you even believe a fraction of the stuff you're writing? You pick the two least relevant sources included in the search to represent all of the other articles that directly mention the school and its programs, again deliberately misinterpreting the information provided to falsely push your agenda. Will you ever demonstrate the intellectual honesty necessary to address ALL of the information provided, and stop manufacturing requirements that you feel this article doesn't meet? Where is the criteria that specifies your made-up rules? Alansohn 12:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep Per above, ALL schools are inherently notable -- Librarianofages 06:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Show me where it says such a thing in Wikipedia policy. Anyone can start an unaccredited "school" and there's nothing notable about 99 percent of those who do. wikipediatrix 15:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. An "unaccredited Christian Baptist institution" that "does not hold classes in any conventional sense" and only "teaches Baptist principles and practices" is not a school in any sense of the word. All churches and prayer groups teach their principles and practices, that doesn't mean they're schools just because they say they are. I could start thirty of these kinds of online "schools" sitting here at my computer this afternoon and be no more or less valid. wikipediatrix 15:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unaccredited school with no assertion of notability. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and JoshuaZ. Small pseudo-institute with no assertion of notability. Prolog 06:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The coverage in independent reliable sources allows us to write an article adhering to the policies WP:NPOV and WP:V. Contrary to the commentary above, one of these sources is from this year, not from earlier years.  Getting accreditation is a multi-year process for a new school.  See the section on accredidation here for where they are in the process.  I assume the editor who claimed they could lauch lots of "equally valid" online schools in an afternoon is a college/university president, as this was founded by one fired as part of a theological (not academic) dispute.  See .  GRBerry 15:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment What independnent reliable sources? All we have are a few religious publications with obvious strong biases in the matter. JoshuaZ 16:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The Baptist publications are independent reliable sources. They are not by close affiliates of the institute.  For those who don't follow Christian denominations, baptists are about as unorganized as something can be and still be worth having an organizational label for.  Independent for discussing notability and for WP:INDY purposes means just independent of the particular organization/person/etc... under discussion.  Religious POV newspapers are just as legitimate as "alternative" newspapers with a politically left POV (which we use as independent reliable sources on politically left topics).  The Baptist Standard is a print newspaper/magazine that has been publishing since 1888, see .  The Associated Baptist Press is a news bureau based in Florida with offices in Washington D.C. and Texas, see .  GRBerry 18:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I find the comment by JoshuaZ that the sources used are "religious publications with obvious strong biases" to be disturbing and confusing. What is their bias? Each of these sources are used to provide factual information, not to offer an opinion. Each source used is an independent entity that covers religion. The implication that these sources are invalid is false, if not patently offensive. Alansohn 13:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue here is notability. There are two sources tied to churches. That's all there is. Yes, accreditation is a multi year process; Are they a canidate? Can you verify they have applied for accreditation? All regional accreditators require a school have a library, this doesn't even have a campus. Arbusto 16:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The only one of these points relevant to notability is that the false claim about the independent sources. The sources are not tied to churches.  The publishers have near pseudo-denominational affiliations, which is very, very different.  (Baptists aren't even really a single denomination; in the U.S. they were for about 50 years, but have been becoming more and more fragmented since they original association broke up due to the same tensions that led to the Civil War.)  See the response above for more details about what the publishers are.  There have been multiple published, independent reliable sources primarily about them, which is the foundational basis for almost all criteria for notability, and we have no consensus criteria for schools to assert a tighter standard.  (The notion of tighter standard for schools is laugahable, given the general AFD discussion about schools.)  A trivial google search also produces additional reliable sources.  There are 34 articles in The Baptist Standard that refer to the school (natural, given that it covers Baptists in Texas) .  It has been covered by the North Carolina baptist newspaper, which isn't exactly local to the school,  (this also incidentally mentions a near 5,000 volume donation to the Institute's physical library plus a second smaller one, proving from an independent reliable source that the institute does have a library). GRBerry 18:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Coverage of specialized subjects is often in specialized publications. Particle physics developments are covered in specialized physics journals, and Baptist religion is covered in Baptist religious publications. We do not refuse to have articles about Quarks because only books and journals about particle physics, which are obviously biased toward tiny invisible no-see-ums, discuss them. Edison 13:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Two sources fails WP:CORP which states "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." Moreover, you need accreditation in Texas to be a legitimate school. Please provide a WP:RS that this "school" is recognized by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board(a group that oversees higher education in Texas). Arbusto 01:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am starting to think that you are either not listening or severely biased. First, "multiple" means more than one.  So even if there were only two, which has been false for the entire time this discussion was underway, multiple is met.  But we have linked in the article and referenced here, from at least three different independent publishers four different non-trivial published works primarily about the institute.  Then I pointed out that one of those publishers has thirty-four different articles that mention the institute.  Your arguments hold no water.  Plus we have JJay's statement below that it was covered by the city paper, even though their archives aren't freely available to use it as a source.  And not being accredited is not a reason for deletion; we have multiple categories for non-accredited schools.  GRBerry 12:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please try to turn down the attitude and keep your personal observations about other editors to yourself. And as for the other sources, I don't think publications like the Baptist Standard or the Biblical Recorder count, because they violate, at least in spirit, WP:CORP's dictum that the source be "independent of the company or corporation itself". It's for this reason that we don't give as much weight to articles about Scientology that come from Scientologist news services. Lastly, I think the authors of WP:CORP meant "multiple" to be more than just two, because even a hot dog stand in Iowa can manage to get two puff-piece articles written about itself in some paper or other. wikipediatrix 13:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment To address the issues raised regarding WP:V, the publications listed in the article are independent and verifiable in full compliance with WP:V. The fact that they cover church-related news makes them no different from any other "industry" publication that neutrally covers a particular subject. Additionally, it was only a lack of effort that fails to turn up other sources. Google News Archive provided several additional references in such "partisan" publications as the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dallas Morning News, San Antonio Express-News, Kansas City Star and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, all of which should pass the WP:V test of even the most rabid deletionists. Alansohn 13:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:CORP indicates that the school must be the subject of the articles, not just be "mentioned". Is the school specifically the subject of these articles? And are they actual articles per se, or are they blurbs on the "Religion" page of said papers? wikipediatrix 13:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You could always click on the link provided, and check for yourself. Sunject lines such as "Four leave Southwestern Baptist to join new seminary", "Baptist seminary may find itself at home in Arlington", "Texas Baptists to open independent institute" and "Theology education taken to churches" would all seem to be "about" B. H. Carroll Theological Institute, not just mere "mentions" as your scare quotes seem to fear. Though you (and all others who voted to delete) should click on the link and check the sources for yourself, and not take my word for it. The article has been updated with several of these sources, which have been included in the article with links to the references. Alansohn 14:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Scare quotes? Um, no, they were quote quotes. I was quoting the editor above who stated "one of those publishers has thirty-four different articles that mention the institute." And a mention isn't good enough. Many of the articles you refer to came out before the school opened, and are apparently simply passing along what was received in the school's press release. This too, is dealt with in WP:CORP. Again, any hot dog stand in Iowa can accomplish same, but that doesn't make it notable. wikipediatrix 14:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * First there are no sources. Then the sources are "biased" baecause they're church-related. Now the sources are indeed from widely-accepted news sources, but came out too soon, before the school opened. Every source listed and provided in the article meets every standard specified by WP:V, WP:RS and especially WP:CORP which specifies that The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself, which is clearly met by the sources provided. I'd suggest spending more time rooting out Wikipedia's overflowing bounty of Iowa hot dog stand articles. Alansohn 15:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did quote me saying "one of those publishers has thirty-four different articles that mention the institute." You apparently didn't notice the immediately prior sentence (which you need to read to understand the quoted one, because the antecededent for "those" is in the prior sentence) that says "But we have linked in the article and referenced here, from at least three different independent publishers four different non-trivial published works primarily about the institute."  The bit about thirty-four is for people who don't think four is enough and are willing to look at the evidence that has been provided.  I think four that meet every test in WP:CORP and WP:INDY is enough to defeat the claim about inadequate sourcing, so I'm not going to waste my time looking at the other thirty-two.  If you feel that you need more in order to change your opinion, I point you back to the link I posted above so that you can go read all of them.  GRBerry 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. nn school. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fort Worth Star-Telegram covered the founding of the school with multiple articles. That's good enough for me. I also agree with Alansohn that the nom's attempts to stigmatize other users is clearly out of order. --JJay 21:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:CORP per GRBerry and JJay. Kappa 07:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously there exists a pretty substantial amount of verifiable information on this topic. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note to closing admin.: ALL some the keep votes are from school inclusionists that voted keep last time. Probably due to this afd being added to the school deletion watch list. That is even though it not being a university, college, public or primary educational that awards degrees or diplomas. Arbusto 17:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply Note to closing administrator (using Arbusto's "logic"). The exact same individual who created this AfD is the same deletionist who created the original, failed AfD. As a particpant in the original AfD, by his own argument, he should be forbidden to participate in this AfD. Any and all of his comments, particularly his attacks against individuals who have voted to keep, should be ignored in their entirety. For that matter, shouldn't Arbusto have been forbidden from creating a second AfD? Can anyone (let alone Arbusto) show where Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive has a qualification that schools to be included must be "a university, college, public or primary educational that awards degrees or diplomas". Arbusto, please stop finding more excuses and start addressing the facts: Every source listed and provided in the article meets every standard specified by WP:V, WP:RS and especially WP:CORP which specifies that The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself, which is clearly met by the sources provided. Stop attacking individuals and start addressing the facts that have been presented. Alansohn 20:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Another False Statement I opined keep this time, and didn't particpate in the last AFD. Ditto for User:Librarianofages.  Ditto for User:JJay.  Ditto for User:Christopher Parham.  Indeed, the only keep opiner to date that participated in the last AFD is User:Alansohn. In addition to being false, the prior comment is a failure to assume good faith.  (It also reflects not understanding that AFD is not a vote, it is a discussion, and should be closed on the strength of the arguments, and repeatedly making deletion arguments that are obviously false does nothing for the strength of of ones other arguments.)  As for me, the claim that I'm a school inclusionist is easily refuted; read User:GRBerry.  The fourth bullet point is about schools, and this one looks like it will meet my permanent standards for introducing a new educational methodology to seminary education, not just my temporary keep standards.  GRBerry 18:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right not all. However, this happened last afd when the school inclusionists astrotrufted this afd. Arbusto 19:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Could both of you calm down please? Also, GRB as to the matter of introducing a new education methodology, the standard precedent for any other type of article (for example software) is that we only write articles after others have found the introduction of the new thing to be notable. That doesn't seem to have happened yet. JoshuaZ 18:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder; I'll try to calm down and focus more on my for pay job. I do think those outside the Institute are already starting to see the new methodology as notable, as evidenced by some of the articles linked in the article.  But my keep opinion would stand even if that methodology never caught on elsewhere, because there is more than enough independent reliable coverage, some of it from outside the region, which meets my temporary standards.  Also, does your prior opinion still stand given the enhanced sourcing the article now has (significantly expanded today)?  GRBerry 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Some comments above violate WP:AGF and WP:NPA, by seeking to discredit the comments of other editors based on their supposed membership in a group of "inclusionists" or ''deletionists." Talk about the article, not the other editors. I have voted to delete the articles for far more schools and churches than I have voted to keep, but I voted to keep this article.Edison 13:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Using the exact same standards, I could start my own unaccredited "online bible school" out of my living room, send out press releases and get friends in the media to write puff-piece articles about it (not to mention the inevitable articles from religious media), create my own Wikipedia article for it, and point to this AfD if anyone squawks about it. Surely this is not what was intended by WP:CORP. wikipediatrix 18:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, and if you get the secular media in your city to report that you persuaded professors to leave another seminary to teach at yours, I'll be quite happy to opine that the article on yours should be kept. If you can't, there is a real difference in the basis for keeping this real Institute of higher education and your hypothesized online bible school.  (That link goes to a source already linked in the article.)  GRBerry 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How does a professor leaving a seminary for this one make any difference regarding WP:CORP? wikipediatrix 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Having independent reliable sources write articles primarily about it means that it is notable to the WP:CORP standard "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." This has been discussed extensively above.
 * In this particular use of the statement, it undercuts the argument that you could create an equivalent school out of your living room, and explains how the hypothetical AFD for your hypothetical school would not be equivalent. This is a real school, not a diploma mill.  The evidence on this seems quite clear to me, even looking just at the sources already in the article, never mind the things I saw when I went looking for additional evidence.  We have, between the article and this discussion, proof of staff that were college professors before they joined this Institute, a library in excess of 5,000 volumes, a founder that was formerly a college president, and multiple published articles in multiple independent reliable sources that are primarily about the Institute.  GRBerry 19:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in your comments do I see an explanation of why this is "not a diploma mill". Saying it doesn't make it so. I see nothing in WP:CORP that says having college professors and college presidents associated with you makes up for its other shortcomings. (Tell me again, where exactly is this "library in excess of 5,000 volumes" if they don't have a brick-and-mortar building??) wikipediatrix 20:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I said the evidence was in the sources already in the article. But I'll copy it here for your covenience.  To quote our article diploma mill "an organization that awards academic degrees and diplomas with very little or no academic study, and without recognition by official accrediting bodies." (Emphasis added.)  At the present they lack accreditation, as everyone knows - Wikipedia even sources the article to their statement that they aren't accredited.  However, the other test for being a diploma mill is "awards academic degrees and diplomas with very little or no academic study".  A cursory glance at their admission requirements shows that they want students with the ability to do academic study. (This is most blatantly obvious for the advance studies program.  "For admission each applicant must submit to the Committee of Senior Fellows for Advanced Studies a research paper either previously prepared (an ungraded copy) or prepared especially for the application on a subject in the student’s chosen major field of study.  This paper should be 25-35 pages in length.  The paper should represent the applicant’s best quality of research and writing.  The form and style should follow the 6th edition of Kate Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations.  The paper will be graded in terms of form, presentation, and content to determine whether the applicant is capable of doing research and writing at an advanced level."  But it is visible in the admission requirements for all three levels of studies.)  Since I went to  a school where the typical course was 12 units of credit, I have trouble interpreting course units as used elsewhere, but I'm sure that 48 units in 24 courses for their lowest level or 78 units for one of the second level programs (PDF and PDF), plus a recommendation to take half as many courses per term as one would elsewhere (second to last paragraph), is not "very little or no academic study".  See also second paragraph of their statement on accreditation, linked in the article.
 * I don't know where the physical library is; I'm not in the same part of the world as the Institute. I just know that we have reliable evidence that they have it.  I'd guess it is in Arlington, Texas, given that they have a center there where the professors are. If you really care, drop them a line.  GRBerry 20:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * wikipediatrix, if I understand correctly, you are acknowledging that the article does meet the WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N and WP:CORP standards, but you are stubbornly insisting that the article be deleted because "Surely this is not what was intended by WP:CORP"?!?!?! Why are you concocting a ludicrous hypothetical slippery slope scenario, and not addressing the arguments that have been presented for the article in question using the guidelines provided. If you feel that WP:CORP needs to be amended, go ahead and work to change it, but for now, it's the gold standard, and it has been met. Alansohn 20:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Concocting a ludicrous hypothetical slippery slope scenario", eh? Wow. Sorry, not taking the bait. wikipediatrix 20:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No bait to be taken, especially when you can just grab a weiner at one of those mythical Iowa hot dog stands, avoiding the fish breath. Any response to the WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N and WP:CORP standard issues? Alansohn 23:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: The standards for WP:CORP state that The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself., all of which was met with the "church" sources and is more than met with the coverage added based on the items retrieved from the Google News archive. The WP:CORP standards were created knowing full well that any new and growing company will make efforts -- including hiring PR people, whose sole purpose is to obtain such coverage -- to get articles published in the media, the more the better. That these articles cover the subject in a neutral manner, describe teh school in the context of its "competitors" and within the current Baptist theological framework, meets the "multiple non-trivial published works" standard. That the school was covered by papers in the Dallas/Fort Worth area could be chalked up to local religious coverage that spits back the contents of a press release (I'm surprised this charge hasn't been made yet), but newspaper articles in serious papers based in Kansas City (519 miles from Arlington) and Atlanta (a whopping 800 miles away) bespeak a newsworthiness that meets the WP:CORP standard, using sources that are inarguably valid per WP:V and WP:RS, which ergo, by definition fulfil the WP:N standard. Whether it's Iowa hot dog stands or basement diploma mills, those nonexistent hypothetical cases are irrelevant to the question posed in this AfD. Alansohn 23:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: So the question is whether articles from a few years ago published by The Baptist Standard, Biblical Recorder, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dallas Morning News are multiple non-trivial published works. I have to say it is a little misleading though because your Dallas Morning News, 5 November 2003 and Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 5 November 2003 are published on the same date on the same topic in the same region so I don't a point in attributing them (as they are in the article now) as different sources, but lets get some more opinions. If you could supply more concrete sources to prove notability for this unaccredited "school," prove it is recognized by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, or demonstrate fame in any way I'll withdraw this. Arbusto 00:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Arbusto 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Even if you believe that all schools are notable (fortunately I do not) this institute wouldn't qualify.  "The institution does not hold classes in any conventional sense.  Rather it trains students in 15 “teaching churches” scattered across Texas, as well as through interactive lessons taught over the Internet"  Its not a school, its a church afilliated organization and a non-notable one at this point.  If they actually get accredited, bring the article back.  But we aren't here to speculate on whether it will be accredited as an actual school.  Oops, guess I put this in the wrong place the first time around  Montco 01:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Relisted?!?! There wasn't enough discussion already?!?!?! We seem to be driving this off of WP:CORP, a standard that the article meets and that makes the issue of accreditation moot. If I recall from previous review of the relevant articles, THECB recognition can take two or more years, and B. H. Carroll Theological Institute can't pursue regional accreditation until it has the required state certification. Alansohn 01:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure relisting was a good idea(probably should have gotten closed as a no consensus). However the CORP matter is less than established. I'm not sure everyone is convinced this meets WP:CORP. In particular that these are actually non-trivial sources. Furthermore, if we lack sufficient sourcing to make an article that meets WP:V that's also a legitimate reason to delete, indeed one required by policy. JoshuaZ 01:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * C'mon! The school was not only covered by papers in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, but was also listed in newspaper articles in serious papers based in Kansas City (519 miles from Arlington) and Atlanta (a whopping 800 miles away). Which of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dallas Morning News, San Antonio Express-News, Kansas City Star and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution are you questioning in terms of WP:V? What more do you want to see? Alansohn 02:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, a nominator relisting a discussion is almost always a bad idea. Relisting should be left to a closing admin who can decide whether more discussion increases the odds of having a clear consensus.  Some participants at Deletion Review consider relisting by a partisan as reason to overturn a closure.  GRBerry 14:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per crabapplecove. TJ Spyke 01:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Your vote makes it appear that you haven't read past the first few paragraphs of this AfD. Can I strongly suggest that you read the article, as it has been revised significantly after the AFD was created. Alansohn 02:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable, marginal church organization; not even a school in any meaningful sense. Making the local paper Getting a couple of articles printed in a couple of papers three years ago does not make anything notable. Opabinia regalis 01:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. Your first edit on this page was an attack on me. Stop this. Arbusto 02:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's get this straight; In extremely poor faith, you open an AfD just weeks after your first attempt to delete this article failed. You write up an AfD that starts out stating that "The last afd was "no consensus" due to inclusionists claiming two church publications make it notable", attacking those (including myself) who made good faith arguments to retain the article and genuine efforts to improve this article. Please read your own explicit attacks in the nomination before accusing others of attacks. Alansohn 03:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep (edit conflict) Holy well-poisoning, Batman. Calm down, everyone. Yes, persistent school inclusionists are tiresome and yes this really isn't a school, but the issue is notability and verifiability, as JoshuaZ rightly points out (though I disagree with his ultimate conclusion). Let's look at the sources to see if they establish these.  The "church sources" are articles in independent wire services or publications that appeal to Baptists; however, there is no apparent connection with the seminary itself. They are independent and seem credible to me. Also, this has been covered by major daily newspapers.  The sources (and, since Uncle G doesn't seem to be participating in this discussion, let me be the one to point out that you have to actually read the sources) noted the controversy surrounding this organization: it was founded by four moderate Baptist professors forced out of another seminary when it was taken over by fundamentalists (who dispute the propriety of this college using the name of the other seminary's founder).  The coverage in the mainstream and religious press generated by this controversy makes this subject notable. (I cannot believe my first edit after coming back from a longer-than-expected wikibreak is to keep a freaking school!) JChap2007 02:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep We need to keep cool heads here. I was ready to vote delete right away on this one, but further research bears out.  By the so-called "tests" this seems non notable on face value, but deeper digging DOES turn up multiple, independent coverage.  The various "tests" we apply for notability are meant to get us LOOKING for notability, but they by themselves do not mean that something fails the primary notability criterion.  There is multiple coverage, it is covered in a fairly extensive way, and by independant sources (I know it's "religious" press; but then again you look for music reviews in the music press, don't you???).  Just because it fails a guideline doesn't mean it is AUTOMATICALLY not notable.  It means we should check it out.  When one checks it out, it passes.  --Jayron32 03:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. A Google News Archive search indicates that there are reliable sources for this see . Capitalistroadster 04:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looks like an insignificant little school to me. Even if it were accredited-- I don't think it would be notable enough for WP. Nephron  T|C 04:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this Delete based on a failure of the article to meet an actual exisitng Wikipedia policy, or is this merely based on your original research? Alansohn 05:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alansohn, Capitalistroadster, and GRBerry. I could care less how many Yahoo hits you can or cannot find, this institution is easily notable enough for a project which endeavors to be the complete sum of all human knowledge.  Silensor 05:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete-sources are necessary to write about an already notable topic, but do not in themselves establish notability. Unaccredited diploma mills would rarely be of any note, and this one doesn't seem any exception. Seraphimblade 06:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. As per my previous point about a hot dog stand in Iowa, just because something has press coverage sources they can point to still doesn't make something notable. My Uncle Ned has been in the newspaper many, many times - more so than this diploma mill - but he still isn't notable. wikipediatrix 13:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Alansohn.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 07:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems notable, nicely referenced. Everyking 07:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alansohn. bbx 07:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It barely scrapes in. If it was accredited, i may remove the 'weak'. Qaanaaq 07:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alansohn and Jayron32. I looked at both debates and as they went on, those arguing for deletion just ignored more and more of the citations of independent verifiable sources. Renomination a mere month after the first discusson closed also looks very suspicious to me. Quendus 11:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Strong Delete. Absolutely no recent GNews Hits (so lack of recency and importance). The only article that links here is about the school's founder. Without accredidation, it's just simply not a school (any more than Catholic diaconate formation programs, which confer tons of knowledge -- and ultimately a ministry on students -- through a rigorous academic experience too). There are plenty of things that meet WP:V (which this does) (changed my mind, see below) that are still not notable enough to include in an encyclopedia. Once the school is accredidated, recreate as needed. SkerHawx 12:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Unfortunately, there is no criteria whatsoever that requires a school to be "accreditated" to have an article, nor that articles have to be "recent" to be valid. As you acknowledge that WP:V is satisfied, and that the sources meet WP:RS, which part of WP:CORP is not met by this article? Alansohn 12:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: First off, WP:CORP is a guideline, not the Bible, and not WP policy. There's a gut check about whether something is notable. 400 students? I can name thousands of high schools with more. Coverage in the Fort Worth paper? I can provide tens of thousands of articles if local news coverage is all it takes to be notable enough to be an entry in an encyclopedia. Per your comment, there's also no criteria that says that I can't use a lack of accredidation and any shred of recent coverage to help form my opinion as to whether this Institute matters beyond its own walls. Lack of accredidation means it's not a school that can confer degrees, which means that it's in essence a Bible Study group. Typically, notable organizations will have ongoing coverage or be historically significant. This fails both. And by the way, the Dallas News article cited is future-looking ("hopes to start classes", "will be based somewhere between Dallas and Fort Worth", etc. Both Ft. Worth newspaper articles focus on the four founders resigning their prior posts and joining this new project prior to the Institute ever teaching a class. No secular (i.e. "independent") news coverage exists after the Institute is founded, so I'm not sure that helps the article's case. SkerHawx 13:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Further, here are some precedents, all of which pass WP:V but were deleted. The point is, they failed notability: Texas Baptist College, Baptist College of Ministry, Kansas City College and Bible School. Of particular interest is this precedent: International School of Management that cites a host of other precedents. The question you asked made me dig a bit deeper and do more research, and as such I've changed to a strong delete. Peace. SkerHawx 13:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I think there is a false standard invoked here, that an article must be deleted if it has insufficient "recent GNews Hits" This is no Wikinews. Many birds, Kings, high schools, and State Highways have no recent GNews Hits either, but they somehow retain their articles. Edison 13:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article doesn't cite one piece of independent news (i.e. community news) after the Institute is founded. SkerHawx 13:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Response On what basis are you claiming that the 2006 article from the news bureuae Associated Baptist Press is not independent.  There is no link between the ABP and the Institute.  This independent coverage has been a source for the Wikipedia article since before this AFD began.  The claim that both are Baptist is not a serious claim that they are related parties; as reading our coverage of Baptists could tell you.  Baptists just aren't as organized or like minded as most other denominations are; they are splintery like the Independent Catholic Churches.  Per Baptists in the United States, there are four separate major groups of Baptist denominations.   The ABP self describes in part as "Working out of our Jacksonville, Fla.- based headquarters, and with bureaus in Washington and Dallas, ABP provides daily coverage of Baptist news, news from the nation's capital, and other general news and information of concern to Christians in the U.S. and around the world."  GRBerry 14:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Response. I understand how loosely affiliated Baptist Churches are. But the article's author, Marv Knox, is the editor of the Baptist Standard, and the article you cite by the ABP is a direct copy of an article printed by Knox's Baptist Standard . Another "independent" article cited (The Biblical Recorder) is written by Mark Wingfield, who worked for the Baptist Standard directly under Marv Knox . The third article is by Ken Camp. Camp replaced Wingfield directly under Knox at the Standard when Wingfield returned to ministry. So, although Baptist churches are very loosely affiliated, it seems all three of the authors of the four referenced articles currently work for, or worked for, the Baptist Standard (and they all worked together and know each other intimately). That's not independent. Two of the other references provided are directly from the school's web site. Okay, now deep breath... Take a look at this article Baptist General Convention of Texas. Guess who one of the founding members of the BGCT was? That's right - B.H. Carroll. Guess what the official publication of the BGCT is? You got it -- the Baptist Standard. I hope that helps clarify what I meant. Peace! SkerHawx 16:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Response: So let's get this straight, even though the article meets each and every criteria of WP:V, and the sources meet WP:RS, all of which satisfy WP:CORP, one of the most widely agreed upon standards in Wikipedia, if not THE Bible, we should ignore all of this. Why? Because each and every author of every single one of the articles published about the school are all part of the vast right-wing Baptist Cabal. Somehow, despite the fact that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dallas Morning News, San Antonio Express-News, Kansas City Star and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution are all independent nationally-recognized publications, with editors and publishers looking over reporter's shoulder's, each member of the cabal was able to pull the wool over their eyes and get an article published. Send your theories to Dan Brown, it sounds like a great plot for a new book. But, other than that, it's pure unsupported original research. You'd be hard pressed to find any group of reporters covering any one industry -- Recording, Iowa Hot Dog Stands or Baptist churches -- who haven't worked together at some point in their career. Alansohn 17:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply I'm sorry, I don't see any citations from the San Antonio, Kansas City, or Atlanta papers in this article. The Dallas and Ft. Worth papers are responding to a press conference covering a notable event (the abrupt resignation of four faculty members at SBTS, as below.) And I searched the papers you mentioned, and they all have articles from (only) November 2003 indicating the same information (faculty resigns, to form new institute - note future tense). SkerHawx 17:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Further note: Two of the three secular articles cited are from Nov 5, 2003 (Dallas & Ft. Worth papers). These articles were covering a press conference on Novemeber 4, 2003 and seem to be covering the abrupt departure of the four faculty members from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary as much (or more) as covering the new school. Of course, both articles are (as mentioned above) future tense, since no such Institute existed yet. I'm not paying $2.95 to see the full text of the third article, but the only visible paragraph just repeats the information already known from the first two. Look, the Baptist Standard is the official paper of the BGCT, and all of the religious articles covering this came from the Baptist Standard or its writers. All but one of the articles was published in the Baptist Standard directly (see my citations above). This isn't a conspiracy, it's a Public relations strategy. WP:V is crumbling on this one. Take care, SkerHawx 17:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost convincing Where this falls apart is the link between those editors and the Institute. Yes, the Institute is named after one of the founders of the BGCT.  But he was also a founder of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, from which the staff broke away.  We wouldn't say that the Institute was affiliated with SWBTS because of using one of their founder's names.  The argument was enough to go make me look and see if the BGCT supports the Institute.  The BGCT's page on the schools they support does not mention this Institute.  The results of a search at the BGCT's page don't show any sort of affiliation.  They show trivial mentions a scholarshiop given to a student at the institute, a member of the Institute staff leading a tour group in the U.K, an event being taught by folks from Baylor University held in part at the site of this Institute, that the Institute is one of ninety-seven exhbitors at the 2006 convention, and one of nine schools of higher education hosting a special event at that convention.  (The policies of the BGCT do allow non affiliated organizations to exhibit, I checked, and the hotel chain exhibiting is adequate evidence of that.)  I also checked the Institute's web  You've convinced me that a lot of the articles were written by people who know each other.  You've also convinced me that those writers are the world experts on what events among Texas Baptists are newsworthy.  You failed to convince me that they have any affiliation with the Institute, which is what independence is all about; see WP:INDY.  So I continue to conclude that the articles are by independent sources.  GRBerry 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Last one This will be my last post on this AfD discussion, simply because I'm just not that passionate about whether or not this article is ultimately deleted. I'll answer your question and then just let the facts speak for themselves. Everyone is welcome to vote for a delete or a keep. Alas, you asked for some more detail, so I'll respond this last time. Here you go... Check out the BGCT member church web site and cross-reference it with the institute's teaching churches . A 100% match on all 17 churches. Charles Wade, executive director of BGCT, welcomed the Institute in "...our ongoing effort to train effective Christian leaders..." . Dr. Russell Dilday, one of the founders of the Institute was a former president of the BGCT . This is the bottom line ... the Institute and the Baptist General Convention of Texas have the same deposit of faith. Their visions are aligned, whether or not BGCT explicitly supports the Institute or not. The Baptist Standard is an official publication of the BGCT, and as a religious newspaper it writes from a certain paradigm. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just not unbiased. (If Catholics in Atlanta created a Catholic Theological Institute, the Archidiocese of Atlanta's official paper (The Georgia Bulletin) would cover it (so long as it was in line with Catholic teachings). I wouldn't consider that to be an independent source. Nor would I consider other Catholic publications an authoritative source to help establish WP:V. So I'm just saying that the beliefs of the official voice of the BGCT and the beliefs of the Institute are 100% on target. As such, the BGCT (and therefore the Baptist Standard) have a vested interest in promoting the Institute. That's all. Peace, my friend. SkerHawx 20:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete As per nom. And let's get this straight - the B. H. Carroll Theological Institute is NOT a school. That's a thing that kids go to and every school is notable and important in its community. It is argued often that every school is therefore worthy of an article in Wikipedia. I change my mind about this every week! But, I repeat, this is NOT a school - it is a non-notable, unapproved organisation with no classrooms. Emeraude 16:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - What's the point in deleting this ? Above users have made things pretty clear -- N R S | T/M\B 12:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep We are not a regulatory agency, nor are we interviewing graduates of the school as potential employees, so even if it were a giant unaccredited diploma mill, we should only look at notability, not legitimacy. This is the same principle on which we have articles about religions without having to prove the truth of their claimed miracles and the existence of their particular god. Similarly we have articles about hoaxes and pseudoscience, without certifying the truth of the claims. We are not the arbiters of truth, just of verifiable notoriety. The school has faculty formerly with the mainstream Southern Baptist seminary, who were pushed out by the fundamentalist takeover of that denomination. The school is widely mentioned in Baptist publications, has 400 students, and trains them in 15 churches. It appears to be notable.Edison 12:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As per original nom. The only thing I take away after reading all of this mess (and losing some sanity as a result) is that the school is *still* not very notable. And we (the users and editors) *are* a regulatory agency, at least in terms of what gets posted and kept on Wikipedia. It doesn't meet WP:CORP any more than a diploma mill does. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 13:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Anyone who thinks this meets WP:V should take a look at Skyerhawx's above comments. JoshuaZ 17:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable, verifiable, probably a sketchy enterprise (i.e., not really a 'school,' but more like a 'ministry' of some kind), but the article is quite clear about the lack of accreditation. Auto movil 17:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep may be notable enough. I would err on the side of keeping it. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this page meets all of the rules to keep for a business. Audiobooks 18:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Acts 20:35 & Psalm 2:4 There is something very odd about this site. It seems to be written by someone who wants to paint the instituion in the worst possible light - perhaps the intention is to get it deleted for some reason? Having looked there appears to be three institutions trying to suggest they inherit the Caroll name. I've checked the web site, it looks pukka - it even does greek and that's not for the feeble minded. I've sent an email to the institute suggesting they look at the web page.

--Mike 19:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep This appears to be fairly sizeable institution, if rather new. Comment: Arbustoo and others seem to focus on accreditation as a sole criterion for whether something counts as a legitimate higher education institution.  I agree that for an ordinary college, that is a good rule.  However, for a seminary or other "vocational" type schools (perhaps, say, a school of auto mechanics) I think the rule is not always applicable - the students' prospective employers (in this case, Baptist congregrations) don't care if the school is accredited, they want someone educated by a group that they themselves trust, and who can demonstrate their knowledge of the field.  So, I think we need to focus on other factors - age, size, prominent graduates, connections with established denominations, press, etc. On another point, there also seems to be a tradition of distance education in theological education - probably because prospective ministers can't afford to attend a college full-time. I agree that this makes the institutions less notable, but I don't think it should disqualify them, just because there are fraudulent institutions that use the same methods. --Brianyoumans 20:57, 27 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.