Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralston College


 * 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 Stephen Blackwood. Spartaz Humbug! 15:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Ralston College

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Once-proposed college which has never actually existed and whose web/social media presences have not been updated in nearly two years. Appears to be defunct and non-notable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I am the creator of this page and I apologize for the slow response and indeed for my recent neglect of it and of Wikipedia generally--it simply has not been possible for me to spend much time on Wikipedia, but I hope that this situation is now changing and that I will be able to participate more. With respect to the deletion proposal I would make a few observations. First, it does seem to be true that they have not been using their Facebook and Twitter accounts at all. But having said that it does not seem to me that the level of social media use ought to have any relevance to Wikipedia (and especially to deliberations like this one), either positively or negatively. There are lots of reasons people and organizations back away from social media, and their having done so ought no more be seen negatively by Wikipedians than having a strong social media presence is seen positively. It's just irrelevant. Second, I don't see their website in the same way because official websites are often a usable source of some importance. In this case they appear to altered their website quite extensively since I last looked at it. In particular I note that they have made at least 15 new board appointments since they gave up on social media almost two years ago. This hardly seems compatible with the claim that this organization is defunct especially given that their recent appointees include the likes of David Alton, Deirdre McCloskey, Roger Scruton, Anthony Daniels, David Gelernter, Vernon L. Smith (a Nobel prize winner!), Ruth Wisse, and George Walker. Even in its pre-student phase this organization appears to be seen as an importance locus of innovation. Third, a quick check on the IRS website shows that the IRS still regards them as an existent tax-exempt entity, and under these circumstances I think the presumption should be that it is too soon to determine that they are out of business. Perhaps one should also bear in mind that it's surely not strange for a start-up college to spend quite a long doing fund-raising and similar tasks so that one might well expect that there would be a period of several years between the legal founding of the institution and the beginning of teaching. (For comparison I note that the University of Georgia was founded more than 16 years before its first classes.) I will try to find out more about this; I do not live in Savannah but I know people who do and perhaps there is information in the public domain about their current state of development. In the meantime I will do what I can over the next few days to improve the page. I suppose I may be a bit biased because I created the page but I really do think that for now this article should stay. Tillander  14:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that having a bunch of names on a "Board of Visitors" is not evidence of existence or of notability; having an actual campus and holding actual classes would be. There is vanishingly little reliably-sourced evidence that this organization has any real existence. If the best you can do is point to "here's some names of people who are on an unpaid advisory board," that's not notability. If this does become an actual college at some point, we can create an article on it then. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's true certainly that the mentions in the local press and elsewhere (such as the New York Times) are not recent (presumably this is what you're thinking of when you say "vanishingly") but once again this seems to me only to be expected in an organization that is still engaged (primarily I'm guessing) in raising funds, and it certainly does not mean it seems to me that the organization is not actual or lacks real existence. Tillander 15:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The “New York Times” mention is an 8-year-old mention in an opinion blog post, and is entirely based on the self-declaration of the purported college’s founder. There is no reporting involved, and 8 years later, there is no more evidence that this “college” will become an actual thing than there was then: not much. Again, we aren’t here to promote things that someone wishes will be. If and when Ralston College exists outside a website and defunct social media sites, we can write an article about it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools -related deletion discussions.  We Are All  Here   talk  07:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions.  We Are All  Here   talk  07:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Stephen Blackwood  College isn't open for admissions yet.   Create section about the college in Blackwood's article and when it opens and has students, it can then be easily split off from the article.   AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that Blackwood's article is just a single paragraph, so it can be developed in that context. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect for now. For now this is just a pipe dream of Blackwood and some others. If it actually starts accepting students then we can revisit the issue, but there are lots of proposed colleges that go nowhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is worth taking a look at: https://vimeo.com/167070060 It certainly suggests that at least some of the visitors aren't just titular, and I find it informative in other ways. Also I notice that their twitter account has become active again, perhaps in response to the proposed deletion of this page. Tillander  11:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still inclined to think (and have thought all along) that the range of notable individuals associated with the organization that is the subject of this article is sufficiently unusual and remarkable to cause one to see the article in a somewhat unusual light. Certainly the involvement of Harry Lewis is significant and, judging by the vimeo link in my preceding post, substantial. The same may well be true of the involvement of people like Stanley Fish, Douglas Hofstadter, and Harvey Silverglate. Tillander  11:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The news articles still strongly tie the college to Blackwood, so this can be developed there as a section as perhaps Blackwood's most notable contribution besides Boethius. The name drops of who is involved isn't really helping, as lots of organizations have notable sponsors. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Noting that we do, in fact, have entire categories filled with significant proposed institutions and things (Category:Failed museum proposals in the United States, Category:Proposed museums in the United States  Plus there is some WP:SIGCOV,   Savannah Morning News, 14 Feb. 2011,: HIGHBROW HOPES FOR HIGHER ED, but not very much of it,  In sum, I concur that efficient thing to do here is to redirect this to Stephen J. Blackwood.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2018 (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.