Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elim Bible Institute (2nd 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   keep. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Elim Bible Institute
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable, unaccredited, non-degree granting college. Of the twelve sources listed, two third party, and it only contains a passing mention of the school in question. 2 says you, says two 15:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently its a repost. 2 says you, says two 15:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason this shouldn't be speedied? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, I already tagged it for G4. 2 says you, says two 19:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

delete For schools of higher education, accreditation would seem to be a necessary but not sufficinety compenent for notability. Having a notable allumni, Randall Terry, doesn't make the school notable. Had the school won some major award, then a case for notability could be made. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Accreditation is really irrelevant here; schools can be schools whether or not they're accredited. Would you suggest deleting Pensacola Christian College because they're unaccredited?  I see at least three reliable sources on this article; they don't provide much information, but there's just enough to justify having an article.  By the way, this is completely different from the deleted version; consequently, I've declined the speedy.  Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Colleges and Universities that are accredited and grant degrees are assumed notable even without direct evidence of such in reliable sources, institutions that are not accredited must show coverage in non-trivial secondary sources, and the standard is even higher if the institution is for-profit. Comparing Elm to Pensacola Christian College is apples and oranges. Yes, PCC is unaccredited, but they have significant coverage in secondary sources, and have a large number of alumni/ae who have gone on to be notable. Neither of those statements are true for Elm, and from what I gathered from the original AfD argument, not a whole lot has changed this time around when eight out of twelve sources listed are the school's website, one is a group connected to the school, one is an alumni's biography, and two are trivial mentions. 2 says you, says two 15:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My PCC example was a response to the idea that "accreditation would seem to be a necessary but not sufficinety compenent for notability". I agree that PCC, with its multitude of reliable references, is clearly notable.  Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  —Arxiloxos (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep partly due to the Randall Terry connection; need more/better sourcing. Not a true G4, in my opinion. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a small school and it's not accredited, but it is clear that it exists, it has existed for 86 years, it has many alumni, it promotes itself to prospective students around the world, it has some importance in religious circles, and it occupies an historic campus. The comments I wrote on the article talk page, under the heading "Reasons for creating this page" in June 2007 are still valid:
 * An earlier version of Elim Bible Institute was deleted after an AfD discussion that concluded "RS problems verifying the notability of this diploma mill." I looked into the institution, starting out with no knowledge, and quickly concluded that it is "notable" and has an interesting story. Furthermore, it is NOT a diploma mill. I think it is notable for at least 3 attributes: its apparent influential role in 20th-century American evangelical Christianity (including the Latter Rain Movement, about which I know nothing), the history of its campus, and at least one notable alumnus (Randall Terry).
 * Additionally, I now understand that the school is strongly associated with a Christian denomination (Elim Fellowship) and there is now a linked article about the two campus buildings that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Furthermore, I still know essentially nothing about Latter Rain, but I have added text to the article (third-party sourced) about its role in Latter Rain. (Perhaps someone with knowledge of Pentecostalism will add some context and details on this topic.)
 * If, on the other hand, you believe that this institution is nonnotable and that the article must be deleted, then I suppose that logically it should follow that the defunct institutions that formerly occupied its campus and the historic campus buildings are even less notable and their articles also should be deleted. (Not to mention the stub I created about the school's founder.) --Orlady (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. As well-stated by Orlady, it is notable (in both the Wikipedia and real-world senses of the word) for multiple reasons, which are documented in reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the information in the present article, which shows notability. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. In the absence of accreditation or degree-granting status, notability must be shown by independent reliable sources. NONE of the listed references qualifies. The only mainstream source is a Time Magazine article about Randall Terry, which mentions in passing that he attended Elim. There is literally nothing about the institution itself, despite its age and its presence in a historic location. --MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoosh -- I was away for a couple of weeks, but it's hard to imagine that Wikipedia policies changed this radically while I was away. Please enlighten me about the changes I've apparently missed. I'm not aware of a Wikipedia policy or guideline that says "In the absence of accreditation or degree-granting status, notability must be shown by independent reliable sources". Where did you find this? Also, I am not aware of a policy that says that only broad-circulation mainstream media like Time magazine can be considered when evaluating general notability. In addition to Time magazine and various Elim Bible Institute websites and websites belonging to the Elim Fellowship denomination, the article cites the State of New York, a couple of published books, a local history website, a local church's website, and another news outlet, as well as sources that aren't actually about Elim Bible Institute. What are the objections to these sources? --Orlady (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It says it right here: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." That is the general notability guideline, and it is the guideline that this institute fails to meet. (If an institution of higher education grants degrees, it is considered as automatically notable; if it doesn't, it must meet the general notability guideline which I just quoted and which has been WP policy for a long time.) "Independent secondary sources" excludes things like the institute's own website. "Reliable" coverage does not include most websites, such as a local church or even a denomination. "Significant" coverage is not provided by the Newsblaze and Time stories, which are about Randall Terry and mention Elim only in passing. Sorry, I can see that you have worked hard on this article, but the Institute itself is simply not notable per Wikipedia guidelines. --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Newsblaze doesn't look like any kind of reliable source to me, Orlady. It appears to be some kind of "we accept anybody's content" accumulator, plus a news search function. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Newsblaze is cited only because Randall Terry submitted his biographical sketch to them, and they published it. The other sources that mention Terry's attendance at Elim generally have less detail. --Orlady (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The book Spirit of the Last Days, cited in the article, is a piece of serious scholarship, published by a notable academic publisher, T&T Clark, an imprint of Continuum International Publishing Group. This book describes the significance of the school in connection with the Latter Rain Movement.  In addition, a Google Books search yields more than 250 other hits for this school.  Only snippet views, or no views, are available for such hits as Profiles in belief: the religious bodies of the United States (Harper & Row, 1979)  and The encyclopedia of cults, sects, and new religions (Prometheus Books, 1978) and many more, but it is evident that the coverage does exist, and that the school is historically notable in Pentecostalism. It is difficult for me to see how deletion of this article improves the encyclopedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: I've cited several additional sources and found two more notable alumni (Paul and Rob Schenck), as well as a source indicating that Randall Terry and Schenck were motivated to form Operation Rescue by teachings they were exposed to at Elim. --Orlady (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A school that has been around for 86 years is notable enough. Google news returns 191 results.  Google book search shows some promising results, it listed in an encyclopedia that appears on the first page of the results.    D r e a m Focus  09:12, 27 May 2010 (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.