Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Dalbey


 * 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 redirect to Covenant Theological Seminary. No prejudice against re-creating the article if he does get the top job. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark Dalbey

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Disputed prod. No third party coverage in the article, nor does any substantive, reliable coverage appear to be adducible from Google News/Books/Scholar searches (though a fair number of irrelevant Mark Dalbeys appear to exist). The only claim on WP:PROF that has been made, that of "held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society" is invalidated by the fact that (i) he has not yet taken up the presidency (WP:CRYSTAL), (ii) it is an explicitly "interim" position & (iii) the position of Chancellor (which the current president is taking up) has been created above it (also it is questionable whether a sectarian seminary such as the Covenant Theological Seminary qualifies as a "major academic institution". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This is censorship, not editorial. It is petty, and strikes at the heart of being a WIKI-pedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastor todd (talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am really sorry that you see it this way. I did warn you that this might happen on the talk page. Please understand that this is nothing personal against Dalbey or yourself. Sometimes people make articles in good faith but the subjects are just not quite notable enough. It is just one of those things. Anyway, it is not censorship. We are having this discussion in the open and anybody can say their piece. Whatever happens on Wikipedia, you can take what you wrote and republish it anywhere else you like. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet WP:PROF and, being a pesky petty censor, per Pastor todd. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Not enough notability is demonstrated but I will change my mind if more can be found. I can't say I am hopeful though. I would expect to see more in Google Books or Google Scholar for a notable academic. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL without prejudice to re-creation if and when the subject assumes the presidency in a permanent capacity Keep per below. I reject the sectarian argument (the denomination has over 300,000 members) as well as the chancellor argument - it would seem the new president's position is like that of a Vice-chancellor. StAnselm (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "In the form used in countries such as the United States, the Chancellor is the chief executive of a university." (Chancellor (education)) Therefore a president/vice-chancellor in a US instiution that has a chancellor is not the "highest-level elected or appointed academic post". So "the chancellor argument" remains valid. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And I emphatically reject the implicit claim that a single-purpose institution catering to that single purpose exclusively for a group making up only 0.1% of the population of the US, comes any way close to "a major academic institution". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The US News & World Report or Forbes college rankings don't seem to include the the Covenant Theological Seminary. Sectarian schools can be notable, e.g. Brigham Young University, but my understanding of US law is that anybody can set up a degree-awarding institution, so we'd require evidence to show this is a "major academic institution". --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously, you would need a rankings list of seminaries. The only list I can find is this one, where it comes 14th. StAnselm (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See the link I posted below, which displays information about all the members of the Association of Theological Schools - the accrediting association for schools of theology. --MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The list on the right are the top user rated featured seminaries", rather than any objective standard or expert assessment, therefore not WP:RS. BYU is a university not a seminary, and thus teaches a far wider range of subjects than just religion, which would explain its considerably greater stature. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Covenant Theological Seminary. As a college with 812 students this is hardly a singificnat institution.  The article gives no indication that he has published anything significnat.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment In this 9 May 2012 reference, Dr. Chapell notes that he is currently on sabbatical.  The Aquila Report of 28 April 2012 reports Dalbey's statement of the same date, that he is currently the "Acting President" of CTS.  This should clarify that Dalbey is the current head of the institution.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, or Redirect to Covenant Theological Seminary. Since Dalbey currently holds the "highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution", WP:PROF is satisfied.  But since this constitutes breaking news, and we follow the sources, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper, I can also see making this topic a redirect to Covenant Theological Seminary while the "world at large" notices the topic "over a period of time".  Unscintillating (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have seen nothing in WP:PROF (or any other biographical notability guideline) to suggest that "interim", "acting" or otherwise temporary positions confer the same notability as their permanent equivalents. I would further suggest that it is likely that Chappell will have returned by the time that the "world at large" notices to anything substantive. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment As per the news release from (1) Acting President Dalbey's office on 28 April 2012, (2) the statement from the Board of Trustees on 1 May 2012, and (3) the letter from soon-to-be ex-President Chapell, Chapell is currently on sabbatical and will not be returning to his duties as President.  His role as Chancellor will be "external".  Since Vice President Dalbey had already assumed the role of Acting President, Dalbey's role will not change on June 1, what will change is that Chapell will not get his job as President back.  The information that we have is that Dalbey has been, is, and will continue to be as per WP:PROF the head of one the twenty largest seminaries in the country.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that it refers to the "the search committee our Board has established to seek the institution’s next President." This indicates that Dalbey will not necessarily continue to tbe the seminary's head. But you're right - he is the head now, and that is enough to change my vote to "keep". StAnselm (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: it is not unusual for the more senior, Chief Executive Officer, to have a more external focus, whilst the, more junior Chief Operating Officer, is internally focused. This does not change the fact that in a US setting, where the Chancellor position exists it (not the President position) is the " highest-level elected or appointed academic post at [an] ... institution ". 04:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sez who? At major universities I am familiar with, the Chancellor is in effect the second-in-command, behind the President. --MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Sez" Chancellor (education), quoted above, for one thing. Also "sez" the fact that the existing prez is being promoted to the newly created position at CTS. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking of the University of California type of system - in which the University as a whole has a President, and each campus under him has a Chancellor. I really can't think of any American universities which have a Chancellor (as opposed to a President) as their head. Take a look at pretty much any university you please - from Stanford to Harvard to Mills to Occidental to the University of Texas - and the head of the university is a President. Maybe that definition needs to be updated, or at least sourced/verified. BTW note that the quote above says Dr. Chappel is stepping DOWN from president to chancellor. --MelanieN (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing in that press release indicates it is a demotion, merely that he is (immediately) stepping down from the junior position in order to take up ("transition" to) the senior one when he returns from sabbatical. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, interpret it as you wish. But from the valedictory tone of Dr. Chapell's letter it sounds very much like he is relinquishing his leadership role as president, and that the trustees created the largely ceremonial role of chancellor for him as a kind of "president emeritus" position. --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Covenant Theological Seminary, where he is already listed as Acting President. This will preserve the article as a redirect page, so that the article can be recreated if appropriate later. For now, "Acting President" is not a notable position (and in some places he is called "Interim President"; it doesn't appear to be at all certain that he will receive the permanent appointment). The school website just describes him as "Assistant Professor of Practical Theology, Vice President of Academics", which falls well short of notability. In another issue, the school is so small I'm not sure it qualifies as a "major institution of higher learning". (BTW it's hard to believe that the claimed enrollment of 800 students makes it the 20th largest seminary in the U.S. The chart at the website of the Association of Theological Schools lists many seminaries with more than 1000 students; Covenant is listed with a head count of 698 and a full-time-equivalent enrollment of only 391.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a great table - it's a pity that it isn't sortable. Table 1-4B says there are only 18 schools with a FTE enrollment of more than 500, so the above claim is certainly plausible. What is very clear, however, is that Covenant is in the tenth percentile - about half the schools have less than 150 students. So, getting back to WP:PROF, we have a strong argument for Covenant being "major". StAnselm (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Were you trying to say Covenant is in the ninetieth percentile - rather than the tenth? It does appear that Covenant is one of the 30 or 40 largest seminaries by Full Time Equivalent (that's Table 1.5B, not 1-4B). I guess what that tells us is that almost no theological schools qualify as "major academic institutions". Even a small university, like the one down the street from me, has an enrollment of 2,500 undergraduates and 400 graduate students - and I doubt if it would claim to be a "major academic institution". --MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, that was a howler. You wouldn't believe that I have a math degree. ;) Anyway, if we conclude that no theological schools qualify as "major academic institutions", we have to completely rethink our definition. Of course, the definition isn't given at WP:PROF - perhaps it should be. The word "major" was added in September 2010 with the edit summary "not really meant for community-college type places." So the sort of argument used here is completely unwarranted in terms of the history of WP:PROF. StAnselm (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we certainly differ on whether a tiny college like this can be considered a "major academic institution." But it really doesn't matter. The point is that the roles he holds there - interim (or acting) president, associate professor, vice president of academics - would not qualify under WP:PROF even if we were talking about one of the world's great universities. --MelanieN (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The guideline says, "highest-level elected or appointed academic post". We know of no one with a higher position, so the clause is satisfied.  Perhaps you mean to be arguing that the topic is not "worthy of notice", even though the guideline is met.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Somewhere along the way here people are missing that point that comparing a seminary with a school down the street with 2500 students is not apples and oranges. That is easy enough for people to agree with, a bit more of a challenge is how to compare the apples and oranges.  It would help also to know not just how many students, but how many faculty, because with the faculty you can do a thought experiment that any one of them could be a full time pastor at a church.  The same is true for the long term effects of students graduating with pastoral degrees.  How big are the churches that would be being pastored, 100, 200, 300?  Also, seminaries cross over between being 4-year colleges and schools offering graduate degrees.  Since I have not really studied the issue nor have I heard of CTS before, I don't want to go out on a limb, but nothing in this discussion gives me pause to doubt that CTS is a major institution, in the spirit by which WP:PROF intended it.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reading Covenant Theological Seminary and checking a ref shows that there are no undergraduate students at this seminary. Unscintillating (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The history of the denomination shows that the seminary played a prominent role in the merger that created PCA. Unscintillating (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2012 (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.