Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redeemer Seminary


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Redeemer Seminary

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete Fails WP:NHSCHOOL, no significant coverage. Notability of individual faculty is not transferred. --Bejnar (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep WP:NHSCHOOL states that "alternate criteria" guidelines or the "general" guidelines may be used. The alternate criteria simply state that a school must not a branch of another school. Not an issue here because this school has been independent for several years. Furthermore, although you claim an individual faculty's notability is not transferred, the faculty members of Redeemer have published numerous books and are listed in various publications, and to denote their notability in these publication, the title of "professor at Redeemer Seminary" is used in various publications. This article should not be eliminated because the subject is clearly independent and notable and there is no proper article into which to merge this school. Swampyank (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The guideline does not say alternate criteria. It says: All schools, including universities, colleges, high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or both. The "this guideline" is the guideline: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep High schools are generally considered notable so I can't see how a historic seminary with notable graduates and a long history wouldn't be? I also find the assertion that there is no coverage to be suspect. Has the nom checked Catholic sources (or whatever denomination is pertinent)? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a Protestant seminary. I checked book and web sources and they were not about the school. The school was only mentioned in the context that such-and-such professor taught there. --Bejnar (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My findings were similar. But I don't know what is available offline. At any rate, I think a well established school of higher learning would generally be considered notable based on precedent. And there are some mentions of the school and its faculty and alumni in books nad scholar sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Degree-granting institutions are notable by long-standing precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is true, why has not the guideline changed? Other guidelines have had bright-line rules, such as for athletes, that do not require the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Can you point to a consensus about the change in the school guideline? --Bejnar (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In practice I have yet to see an established high school deleted at AfD. This school is at the college/ university level. I would support a change of the policy page to reflect well established consensus. As a side note I think the athlete standard puts too much emphasis on being professional and too little on coverage in sources, but it is what it is. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * On that note, this seminary was spun off from Westminister in 2009 and was just accredited four months ago. It has not yet had time to become notable. It had a total of 150 students enrolled this past fall. --Bejnar (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment For those arguing for keeping Redeemer Seminary solely on the basis of presumption, please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) ending with Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). See also Wikipedia:OUTCOMES.  But for outcomes to be valid each school has to be argued on its own merit, not on a presumption. Think about it. --Bejnar (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. It is going nowhere. The consensus hasn't changed because some editors object to it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per long-standing practice as noted above (see also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). In this case, the number of Google Books hits, and the news coverage when the seminary was founded, also indicated a pass of WP:GNG. -- 101.119.29.143 (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Won't you even look at the Google Book hits? They are not about the seminary, they mention the seminary in the context of where an author works. The news coverage in 1999 when the seminary was founded as a campus of Westminister was just press releases. No independent coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 23:25, 5 January 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.