Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilmette 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   delete. v/r - TP 01:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Wilmette Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There are no independent reliable sources indicating why the subject of the article is important. A Google search provides only links that are affiliated with the organization Jeff3000 (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment That may be, but the existence of the school is WP:V verifiable, and within the context of Baha'i I'd say that it has prominence.  Since there are several possible merge targets, this does not appear to be a candidate for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Are they any reliable sourcesthat this school has prominence in the Baha'i Faith, and assert it's notability (note that self-published sources cannot define notability)? -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE prominent material does not require WP:N notability. And WP:V verifiable material can be self-published, it is stand alone articles that normally require notability.  In the article, I saw three other US Baha'i schools, and the main article on Baha'i, each of which is a candidate.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE is about the amount of weight different views get on a single article, and is nothing about if a subject is notable in it's own right. WP:DEL-REASON states "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" are subject to deletion, and notability requires "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  All of the sources that speak about this school are not independent of subject, and so it cannot claim notability.  That the other schools have articles is not a valid argument that this school should remain; You can nominate those articles for deletion, and I would support that.  Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Deletion policy (which includes WP:DEL-REASON) says, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." The sentence specifically applies to non-wp:notable topics, and since so far there is no explanation as to why this article cannot be improved with regular editing, which includes merges, there is no case being made here for having an AfD discussion, and we are in WP:SK territory.  WP:DUE says, "An article should...strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."  In the case of tertiary religious institutions, is there any doubt that such schools are significant to the religion?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm claiming that the page cannot be improved because there are no reliable sources independent of the subject, and you have not provided for any proof otherwise, except that saying it can. Just saying so, is not proof.  Do you have any source that states this school is significant to the religion; as part of the religion I can tell you most Baha'is don't know about it, but that I am not a reliable source, and neither are you, so you need to bring in reliable sources independent of the subject, and as of now, there are none.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Normally religious training institutions of a religious organisation are notable, but I'm struggling to find anything about Wilmette. This article (citing Wilmette's own website as a source) says "The Wilmette Institute was established in 1995 and is an agency of the Baha'i faith in the United States. The institute is dedicated to offering courses on Baha'i topics, both in its classrooms in Illinois and through distance learning; it is currently offering a dozen distance-learning courses per year with an average of 350 students from the United States and about 40 countries." That seems to be it, which isn't enough for WP:N. Apparently, this institution doesn't offer any form of degree (not even an unaccredited one), which could explain the lack of notability. Also, the website suggests it is purely an online institution, without a campus. -- 202.124.72.39 (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not an accredited university. Just calling something an institution of learning doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. There's lots of companies offering online or by-mail learning that aren't notable.  I could offer a correspondence class, put up a website, write some course material, but you need more than that to satisfy WP guidelines. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The only argument against WP:ATD merge due to prominence of the material has been that "most Baha'is don't know about it".  So if most people don't know that the Fatimids overthrew the Aghlabid dynasty in North Africa in the year 909, we should remove this material from the 909 article?  Or is it a purpose of an encyclopedia, to offer information about which readers don't know?  The argument is further refuted on Talk:Wilmette Institute, where an editor says, "The Wilmette Institute is important within it's category of a Baha'i Institution."  Unscintillating (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, but you are completely misrepresenting the comments above for deletion. You can find reliable third party sources for the overthrow of the Aghlabid dynasty, but there are no reliable sources regarding the subject of the article.  I've asked you multiple times to find them, but you haven't.  Furthermore, you are misrepresenting my statement about Baha'is not knowing about the subject of the article.  I didn't use that as an argument for deletion, but instead noted that it is *not* a valid argument and correspondingly just stating the subject of the article is notable does not make it so; I stated instead that you'll have to find reliable sources.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we have WP:RS reliable sources, the nom has not denied that the sources in the article are WP:RS reliable, the nom's point is that because they are not independent of the topic they don't help to establish wp:notability. We are left with there being no argument in this AfD against merger.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, not true. As I stated above WP:DEL-REASON states "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" are subject to deletion, and notability requires "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  It's very clear.  Reliable sources notes that "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable."  So right away, self-published sources that we have are less reliable, and can actually be only used in articles about themselves.  But later on, the guideline goes on to say that they can only be used in an article about themselves when "the article is not based primarily on such sources.", and that is clearly the case here.  So even the self-published sources are not considered reliable here.  So not only are there no third party reliable sources, the self-published sources are not considered reliable in this case, and there is no argument for notability, and thus it meets the criteria for deletion.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any basis for the claim that primary sources "can...be only used in articles about themselves". I think that primary sources can be used anywhere as appropriate.  For examples using bahai.org, see Religious perspectives on Jesus, Religion in Liberia, Bible, Krishna, Israel, and Senegal.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have examined the claim that the "sources are not considered reliable" and find the claim to be groundless. One of the three sources in the article is bahai.org.  bahai.org is "The international website of the Baha'is of the world."  For example, bahai.org is used as a reliable reference in Bahá'í Faith by country.  The website is frequently used as a reliable reference at Wikipedia, a Google search on ["bahai.org" site:en.wikipedia.org] returns 468 unique pages.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but not true again. Self-published sources can be used in articles about themselves in articles when "the article is not based primarily on such sources."  That's true of the Bahá'í Faith by country because there are many other third-party reliable sources. But it's not true here  because there are no third-party reliable sources to define notability.  Please see WP:SPS.  Also that other articles have problems does not mean that the policies should be not followed on this page, so the Religious perspectuves on Jesus page should be fixed, rather than be an argument here.  Also note NOTINHERITED.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that www.bahai.org is self-published? And that it is a reliable source for Bahá'í Faith by country?  Unscintillating (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not as simple as that. It really depends on what article the sources is being used for, and what statement the reference is being used to source; sometimes it would be fine and it would be a reliable source, and other times it wouldn't be applicable for it to be used. WP:SPS covers those cases. Furthermore, third-party reliable sources that define the notability of the subject allow bahai.org to be used in some cases.  However, that is mostly irrelevant to the discussion here, which is about the Wilmette Institute, and not the Baha'i Faith by country or the Baha'i Faith, both which have tons of third-party independent reliable sources that define their notability, and then allow some self-published sources to be used.   For the Wilmette Institute I have asked multiple times for references independent of the subject, but none have been found.  Are you saying that if I create a website called "Jeff's Baha'i school", make a blog, some Youtube videos, then I can create a Wikipedia article about it.  Clearly WP:SPS, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:DEL-REASON don't allow that, and the Wilmette Institute is no different.  Notability (organizations and companies) notes "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it."  Note the words significant, independent and secondary, as well as incidental.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: You had me at "no reliable sources"  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  04:54, 13 March 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.