Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bible colleges

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. Majorly (hot!) 00:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

List of bible colleges

List of bible colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete per Wikipedia is not a directory. Unreferenced list, no definition of Bible College, lacks criteria, and some of don't use the term bible college to identify themself. We have categories that do a better, accurate job: Category:Seminaries and theological colleges, Category:Universities and colleges by religious affiliation, Category:Christian universities and colleges, and many, many more categories that have them categorized better.

In sum, there is no definition of a Bible College, no sources, questionable institutions on the list, and some are "seminaries" and universities that don't fit the title of "bible college".Arbustoo 01:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of independent Baptist colleges. Arbustoo 01:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this is what the category system is for.Madmedea 15:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It seems that you cannot have red links (like you can have in the article) in categories. That makes categories inherently disadvantageous for content development (which is partly what lists are for; see:Wikipedia:List_guideline).

• Keep - As per list guidelines: seems to be informative, potentially helpful in navigation (especially for someone curious about bible colleges), and may be helpful for content development (if someone wants to go ahead and write about Bible colleges that are currently not here on Wikipedia or simply improve existing articles).--Remi 15:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Modified - to Keep or Move - if this supposedly is not just bible colleges, then move it to List of Christian colleges. It can easily be made to fit list guidlines (if it already does not). --Remi 20:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment Its had a source tag on it since June 2006, and not a single source. Many of these don't even identify themself as a "bible college." Remi, your reasoning is based on "potential" that "may be" helpful. If someone wants to know about a Christian institution of higher learning (where its a college and they use the bible), we have categories and other articles about religious studies. Arbustoo 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It will be helpful to someone. It can also be improved as all articles could. --Remi 20:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this is a category masquerading as a list. Remi, as I've already said Wikipedia:List guideline is a technical article on how to format a list, not a notability criteria — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this is a category, not a list; make it into a category! --Haemo 18:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Based on a google search, there are an awful lot of schools worldwide that call themselves "Bible Colleges". In fact, I get over a million hits [1]. Given that this is the only article we have on Bible Colleges, I see no reason for deletion. --JJay 20:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • JJay is this WP:POINT? I think your should deal with your RfC. This is tiresome: Your main interest in wikipedia for April 25th is all related to my AfDs and other articles I've editted recently. Arbustoo 02:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Your comment has no bearing on this article or this AfD. One of my main "interests" is retaining wikipedia articles on schools. Furthermore, this AfD is not "yours". As the nominator, you invite opinions on the validity of an article for inclusion. That is the only issue we are "dealing with" here. Anyone can participate and if you find contradictory opinions to be "tiresome" than perhaps you should not respond. In any case, I would encourage you to review WP:Point (your interest in RFC pages has been previously noted; your continued references to RfC seem to be aimed at discrediting other users; this is not a forum for innuendo or accusations). --JJay 09:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Your answer is pretty telling. The fact that you have an ongoing RfC, and take a narrow interest in my AfDs is a clear indication of WP:POINT. Arbustoo 12:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Glad to see you remain on point (i.e. not discussing this article). Keep up the good work. JJay 12:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • "My foot" over a 1.6 million ghits. Do we need an article about my foot? Arbustoo 22:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • My Foot. --JJay 23:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah? My Foot by The Pillows (a CD by a well-known band) has many less ghits. About 60,000 compared to 1.6 million of just "My Foot". Arbustoo 23:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the subjective definition of bible college. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:A and WP:NOT#DIR. Unsourced articles are inappropriate, and I think a category makes more sense here (although there will surely be some debate whether or not particular schools belong in the category). --Butseriouslyfolks 02:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, bsf. I find myself in rare disagreement with jzg: the definition could always be revised should it be necessary; here the effort itself is flawed. Eusebeus 06:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• delete per nom --Greatestrowerever 10:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Move only the introduction (assuming it can be sourced) to Bible College ... which is apparently where this list came from in the first place, and redirects to the list. This makes it tempting to just redirect the whole to Seminary, but I believe that there are sufficient differences between at least the historic usages of the two terms to warrant a separate article. I am going to abstain from voting on the list itself, but a few comments: based purely on my intuition, this list probably needs to be at least an order of magnitude larger to be useful; stylistically, it is a bit of a mess with external links, text hyperlinks, and (un)accredited colleges all mixed up together. Eldereft 14:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree; if it sourced. Unless redirect to seminary or religious studies. Arbustoo 22:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I must agree that, as a list, it is unencyclopedic and difficult to follow in its present form. If this article is to be kept, a lot of work is going to have to be put into it. If this article is going to be a category, then so be it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NDCompuGeek (talk • contribs) 13:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Oops..... forgot to sign - NDCompuGeek 13:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete make category.SlideAndSlip 15:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - but a category would be fine. Metamagician3000 09:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Convert to Category - Lists of this kind are much better as categories. However that leaves the question of what to do with the introduction. In Britihs evangelical circles, Bible College is a term we understand, as referring to a college preparing students for christian ministry; I suspect that the measning elsewhere is slightly different, but that does not matter. This leaves the question of what to do with the introduction. Though unsourced, it looks right to me: it is littler more than a dictionary definition. A redirect to seminary will not do as in Britain that means an establishment traning for the Roman Catholic ministry. The introduction should be moved (my cut & paste) to Bible College, which is at present a redirect to this list. This should become the main article for the proposed category. Peterkingiron 22:39, 29 April 2007 (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.