Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel College of the Bible


 * 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 speedy keep per WP:SK. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  20:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Israel College of the Bible

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable institution, fails WP:GNG. The article largely relies on the college's own website and trivial mentions in other sources. Israel Today is a free throwaway. Only Arutz Sheva and Maariv are acceptable independent sources, though they only describe the opposition to the school. Yoninah (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christainity-related deletion discussions. 14:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)  IZAK (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I was responsible for accepting this article via AfC. I would have thought that any degree-giving college with several hundred students would be intrinsically notable. I have added three book sources to improve the quality of the referencing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep But those two newspapers did describe the school. The fact that these publications mentioned the school is an indicator of notability.-- TMD   Talk Page.  21:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Reliable sources writing about the college because of community angst about it is at least as good of an indication of notability as said sources writing about something because they like it.  (I.E. it shows a clear impact on the community if opposition to it rises to a sufficient level to warrant coverage, whereas writing positive stories does not necessarily show community impact.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as this subject seems to have the basic refs that it belongs in Category:Messianic Jewish organizations and connected with Christian Zionism. While the nominator's points are well taken, however it would appear that the tone and intent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT are not good enough to request deletion at this time. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * IZAK, I don't understand why you are accusing me of nominating something per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have worked very hard to save other articles from deletion even though I don't subscribe to their belief systems. I reviewed this article for WP:DYK and noted that it was all based on primary sources except for the 2 newspapers that only speak about opposition to the college. Per our many AFD discussions for yeshivas, I knew that it needed independent sourcing to last on Wikipedia. More sources have subsequently been added by Cwmhiraeth. Yoninah (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for butting in, but unless I'm mistaken the sources need not have been in the article. They need merely have existed -- which a wp:before search should ascertain.  Yoninah -- are you suggesting that you now agree with all the other editors that this is a keep? If so, you might consider withdrawing the nomination. Also, see Common outcomes; Schools, which is often referred to with college-level AfDs ("Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists."). Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep. Per my above comments, and this having appropriate sources. Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. Of course I tried to search for other sources before nominating this, Epeefleche. I was doing my best to accept it for DYK, but couldn't find other sources and didn't get any help in this regard from the page creator or the nominator. The new sources that Cwmhiraeth has added have definitely improved notability, and I hereby withdraw the nomination. Yoninah (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I only raised the point because the nomination focused on what the article itself relies on, in terms of refs. And then your response to Izak also focused on the refs in the article itself. In any case, I believe per Common Outcomes that even with the refs then-existing-in-the-article, the common outcome of an AfD of a college article is to Keep it with such sourcing.  Per Common Outcomes. Thanks for the withdrawal. Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2014 (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.