Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity Southwest University


 * 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. There is consensus not to delete this entirely, and there is also consensus not to merge this to Tall el-Hammam. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 17:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Trinity Southwest University

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Neither WP:ORG nor WP:GNG seem satisfied by our sourcing here as required by WP:NSCHOOLS. jps (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Google News has the school all over the news in connections to the "Sodom got wiped by a meteor" idea. What do you want to see of this school that's not in the article, that is present for similar size and profile "universities" that are notable? Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That are not press releases? — Paleo Neonate  – 02:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Which one(s) covered by Google News do you think are press releases? Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Outside of this Collins getting some press, we have no evidence that this "place" even exists. We don't even have any "it's just a post office box in Poughkeepsie" allegations; there's nothing of substance, for good or ill. And Jclemens: re-read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  22:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not what I said. I specifically was looking for notability deficits that, if remedied, would satisfy the nom's objection, not arguing WP:OSE so keep.  Keep is on the basis of the coverage that's in GNews and GScholar. Jclemens (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And in case you remain worried about Collins' prominence being a "one event" type of thing, rerun the GNews, GScholar, etc. searches with a "-collins" parameter. I still get plenty of hits, so I ask again: what is missing? A detailed review of the architecture? Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How about a source that talks about the university as an institution? Off-hand mentions are not something we can use to write an article. jps (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of colleges and universities in New Mexico. KidAd  •  SPEAK  00:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I sure wouldn't want my name associated with this place, but that's entirely irrelevant. Even just as a publisher of books it is notable enough, see here. Zerotalk 00:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This brings results like directories and stores, but I don't see how this is an indication of notability. — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops, Google urls are hard to get right. You need the search 'inpublisher:"TSU Press"' at Google Books (including the double quotes). Maybe this works: . I see about 30 books published by TSU Press. You can also search for "TSU Press" at amazon.com for a similar result. Zerotalk 08:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Publishers of 30 books are not usually considered notable just for having published 30 books. We need reliable sources that identify the publisher as notable. jps (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 *  Delete or Redirect to el-Hammam  - Sources are directly by affiliated institution(s) or author(s). There are a few exceptions, Christianity Today, Retraction Watch, Daily Advance (is this a press release? It's very local news if not).  There are a few in Popular Archaeology that appear to be press releases (one explicitly tagged "news release"), then there's primary Scientific Reports.  These apparently less affiliated sources are all related to the Sodom claims and could potentially be used in the target article...  I fail to easily find decent independent sources and especially so when looking for critical ones that mention pseudoarchaeology IRT TSU or TSU Press (I think I've found one but it was a conference about misleading popular media and I couldn't get the transcript).  I could be convinced with more independent sources listed by participants and think that there would be value in having an article, since it provides some information like the lack of accreditation.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you list the sources you found under "There are a few exceptions, Christianity Today, Retraction Watch, Daily Advance" and explain why they don't meet GNG? Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat what I said in Articles for deletion/Steven Collins (archaeologist) and strongly oppose merging any of this to Tall el-Hammam. It's a settlement with thousands of years of history (Bronze Age through to Byzantine); a part of Jordanian cultural heritage that has been investigated by notable archaeologists such as Nelson Glueck, Alexis Mallon, and most extensively by Kay Prag. It is completely undue (to put it lightly) to crowd that out with tangential information about a New Mexico bible college and the pseudoarchaeologists that work there. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If the material is undue for the site's article, then there would be nothing left if this article was deleted. If we can consider the claims to have notability and they're tied to the org, it would make sense to keep them it in this article.  For this reason I've tried to look for a few more sources.
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/10/16/the-long-quest-to-find-the-biblical-cities-of-sodom-and-gomorrah/ a mention of the Popular Archaeology article https://popular-archaeology.com/article/possible-site-of-ancient-sodom-yields-more-finds/ that mentions Collins and TSU.  https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/destruction-of-city-by-space-rock-may-have-inspired-biblical-story-of-sodom-180978734/ mentions Scientific Reports article https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-97778-3 .  https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/sep-25-bronze-age-town-destroyed-by-meteor-global-warming-makes-animals-shapeshift-and-more-1.6187428/ancient-jordanian-town-destroyed-by-a-meteor-blast-may-have-inspired-biblical-stories-scientists-say-1.6187436 mentions a Scientific Reports article.  I think I found what I was looking for and will update my !vote.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you think that an article about the actual controversy might be a better thing to write than trying to include all this in an article about the university? Seems to me that these sources are about the WP:SENSATIONal claims rather than the university, the researchers, or even the archaeological site per se. jps (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the CBC story doesn't even mention Collins or Trinity Southwest University. Nor does the Smithsonian Magazine item. The WaPo quotes Collins but does not mention TSU. Those quotes all appear to be from the Popular Archaeology website, which says Steven Collins of Trinity Southwest University and gives no other information about TSU. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Updated to weak keep because I could find less affiliated news/magasines with mentions, that it would be better for any related material to be in this article and that I find that the entry is useful (searching for Collins or TSU will lead here with relevant information). The independent news appear to show, or to lend, some notability...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note Per Articles for deletion/Steven Collins (archaeologist)' closure as merge to this article, evidence for Collins' notability is to be covered in this article, at least for the moment, so arguments that coverage for Collins do not contribute to the notability of the University in question (which he leads) are more properly raised at WP:DRV. I'll note that the nominator here made that deletion nomination, it was closed as redirect roughly a day before this nomination was made, and he fails to bring up this context in this deletion discussion. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not my problem if the sources about this institution are so thin. If the consensus is to redirect to an institution and the institution is not notable... sorry folks... that's just Wikipedia following its own rules. jps (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:NOTINHERITED should be required reading. jps (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You've been around long enough, and sanctioned enough times for bad behavior regarding topics you don't like, that I would have thought that it would have motivated you to be on your best behavior, rather than transparently playing games to get content you don't like deleted. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You have been around long enough and sanctioned enough times for bad behavior in AfDs that you don't like, that I would have thought that it would have motivated you to be on your best behavior, rather than transparently playing games to argue that content you like should not be deleted. See? Two can play at that game. jps (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can post mirror text and pretend it's equivalent, but the underlying reality is that you were at one point topic banned from WP:FRINGE, which you believe this to be based on your comments in associated AfDs, after multiple trips to ArbCom. Note that I didn't bring this up in the first three related AfDs, but when you get a 'redirect' outcome and then go after that redirection target immediately, that's playing games in my book, and thus, your history of past misconduct becomes fair game. Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You resigned under a cloud because your officious and "holier than thou" attitude was getting you into trouble. You will probably never regain the mop and bucket because of your personalization. At best, you are guilty of following me around in this topic which is fine with me, but it is pretty much a case of WP:KETTLE right now. Wikipedia is a better place for having desysopped you. If not for the "Super Mario problem", I have no doubt you would have received blocks and bans yourself. Be grateful that those of us who can see through your WP:ADVOCACY are usually content to let sleeping dogs lie and maybe stick to making arguments that are relevant to content rather than sniveling about unrelated matters from the past. jps (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of sources, more than what legitimate universities typically get. If that does not satisfy WP:ORG, then we have set the bar too high. Which suggest that the problem is with the absurd notability guidelines, not the perfectly decent article. Dimadick (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * more than what legitimate universities typically get ORLY? Give an example. jps (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete due to the absence of sources that discuss the organization as an organization. Mentions of it in the context of a controversy aren't enough to write an article; articles should be about what the references are about. At most, references like the news stories mentioned here might suggest we should have a page called Controversial archaeological claims about Tall el-Hammam (as jps suggested), Tall el-Hammam meteor controversy, or something of that kind. That would satisfy the desiderata of keeping clutter out of the Tall el-Hammam page, and providing readers with accurate and non-sensationalized information about something recently in the news. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * has suggested Sodom and Gomorrah, since there's actually quite a long history of dubious claims on the topic . Elaborating there makes much more sense to me than having an article here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This institution is in the news, and is a source of widely popularised sensational claims regarding important topics.[User: OldChemProf] — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldChemProf (talk • contribs) 18:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)  — OldChemProf (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep This outfit has existed for a number of years, and its notability should not be judged solely on recent coverage. (I have restored a citation to a 2007 news item about it in an Albuquerque newspaper.) Furthermore, the indication that an article about its controversial leader was redirected to this article means that the article ought to be judged on the combined notability of the institution and the man. Finally, all too often I encounter people who present professional credentials that feature degrees from institutions like this one, and I find Wikipedia articles about these schools to have great value in judging those credentials. Orlady (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as overall there is enough reliable sources coverage related to this institution as identified in this discussion and in the article for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll bite. What reliable source do you see that describes this institution? Just because an article mentions an institution does not mean it is a usable source to write about the institution. jps (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Atlantic306. Additionally the recent thread of related AFDs have been WP:POINTY at best, and prejudiced at worst. These nominations have an anti-religious bent which target articles that intersect academics with religion in what amounts to bad faith disruptive nominations.4meter4 (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We aren't here to coddle the feelings of religious people. If they cannot produce reliable sources or if reliable sources are not produced about them, Wikipedia should not have articles about them. That may feel unfair, but there is really no other option. Religious articles need to meet the same standards as all other articles we have. jps (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep -- This strikes me as a rather odd college, with a lecture program just 2 evenings per week on one aspect of theology and on Biblical archaeology, including a lot of day courses on the latter. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The limited reliable third-party coverage we have is not really about the organization as such, but about issues related to the supposed location of Sodom, which can (briefly) be mentioned at Sodom and Gomorrah.  Sandstein   19:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. While I disagree that the sources aren't enough to pass our notability standards, we shouldn't outright delete this content per the consensus at Articles for deletion/Steven Collins (archaeologist). At a bare minimum, the content merged from that AFD should now be moved to Tall el-Hammam (which arguably should have been moved there in the first place based on the AFD arguments) and this article should become a redirect to the archaeological site in order to preserve attribution of the content. User:ජපස has been on a mission to get all of the content on Collins removed from wikipedia in what amounts to an attempt at censorship; and if we outright delete the content merged from that AFD; we are violating WP:NOTCENSORED as well as overturning consensus at another AFD to preserve that material. 4meter4 (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2021 (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.