Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Training Institute


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  18:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Timothy Training Institute

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

PROD contested, so I'm taking this to AFD. Non-notable group. Rwiggum (Talk /Contrib ) 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I have edited the page and included even more info-but I still don't know what would make this page, to be "approved". Why would a page, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Doors be considered, when the creator didn't even add one reference, yet when I include more info and add references, the page is still flagged for deletion. I accept the fact that you have guidelines and if my page gets deleted, that's fine, but Im having trouble in understanding why...especially when I compare it to other pages...Is it perhaps a matter of private interpretation? Kevincarldavis (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, Speedy Close: Lack of notabiity; the difference is in the results I find on Google for this versus Open Doors (versus anything). Also, this article was previously CSD:A7 and deleted, and the author recreated the article while supressing a notice that the article in question had been previously deleted. Finally, the main contributing author appears to have COI or at least a non-neutral POV. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems as though you don't understand speedy deletion. If the article at least makes claims to notability, then an avenue other than Speedy Deletion must be taken. CSD is used for articles where no significant claims to notability are made. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 14:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems you don't understand. Among the options for voting are Speedy Close for the AfD process, and Speedy Keep, Speedy Delete, Keep/Delete, Strong Keep/Delete, Neutral, Undecided, amd a few others. Read up. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_6 and search the page for "speedy close"... used all the time. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand, but what I'm saying is that it isn't right for THIS instance, as the article makes claims of notability. Yes, Speedy Delete is an option, but if Speedy Deletion was already declined, what makes you think it would hold up now? Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 14:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rwiggum is completely correct. This article is not a candidate for speedy deletion (at least under the assertion of A7.)  There are more than enough claims at importance/significance that such a ruling would be in err.  This is especially true when a person is willing to work on it.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said my grounds were CSD:A7; I said that the article was previously deleted UNDER CSD:A7. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * @Rwiggum: The speedy would hold up on COI, which was just recently added to the list of why I think this is a good deletion candidate. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on your talk page yesterday G4 does not apply to articles that were previously speedily deleted---it only applies if there was a discussion (EG AFD). COI is also not a criteria for speedy deletion.  People often edit articles where they have a COI---the question is can the author still write a NPOV article on the subject?  COI is something to watch for and be mindful of, but it is not the basis for deletion.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Clean Up I am leaning towards keep on this article. I think it has a way to go to meet our quality standards, but when you have somebody who is willing to put in the effort to do so, I tend to side with keeping.  I am not completely sold on the organizations notability, but I do see the potential.  It strikes me as a specialized form of higher education.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently my suspicion was correct, the Timothy Training Institute apparently is accredited by a group called Christian Quality Assurance:International Accreditation of Christian Institutions for Higher Education for undergraduate training.  I am not familiar with CQA, but being listed as providing training at an undergraduate level implies that this is in fact an alternative form of higher education.  Which IMO merits keeping.  The school offers a 3-year Licentiate in Theology which is sufficient for ordination as pastors in African Churches.  As an institute of higher learning in the "third world" I think this is ready for a speedy close---but as a keep.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up. With this new information, I'll go ahead and request a close for this. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 15:51, 6 April 2009 (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.