Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Witherspoon College

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. Davewild (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

John Witherspoon College

John Witherspoon College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article seems to have been created by an account which has a name matching someone the website claims is a staff member; but this was undeclared.

The article only has a single link to it, which was also added by the same user account.

The organisation is unaccredited and apparently very small. The article gets essentially no hits. There are virtually no references to it, and the ones that are appear to be promotional, announcing it may open or an open day, but otherwise I can find no evidence of notability.

Organisation does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG, there is no significant coverage in secondary sources unrelated to the organisation. GliderMaven (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 01:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 01:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 01:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• There are substantive, reported, reliably sourced articles already on the page, from the Rapid City Journal, a major Dakota daily with no apparent connection to the College. I added an AP story.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• keep This is a tough one because although WP:UNIGUIDE reads "In general, all colleges and universities are notable and should be included on Wikipedia," this is a really small, new, unaccredited or perhaps not-yet accredited college. Making this more difficult is the fact that South Dakota has a really small population base, with correspondingly few media outlets. The argument for keeping hinges on 2 things. 1. - the college exists (not compelling for most pages, but a rule of thumb for colleges) and 2. - the AP ran the story when the college opened, and the Rapid City Journal has given it regular coverage throughout its brief existence. (including pre-opening land use and zoning battles) The page needs editing, but many of the claims could be sourced from the Rapid City Journal, and others, such as the size of the faculty, can be sourced from the college, as permitted in WP:UNIGUIDE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Another editor has discovered that this new college is now accredited (now sourced on the page), which seems to make it an routine keep under WP:UNIGUIDE reads "In general, all colleges and universities are notable and should be included on Wikipedia."E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I'm a bit stupid but it looks to me like it's only an applicant for accreditation. That means it hasn't been accredited.GliderMaven (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You are clearly correct, and I was reading carelessly. Do you, or does another editor, understand the accreditation process for a small, independent college? Is this school moving towards accreditation at a normal pace?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is pretty much the typical procedure. The TRACS website explains, "Candidacy (pre-accreditation) indicates that the institution is in basic compliance with the Standards and Criteria, has been evaluated by an on-site peer team, and in the professional judgment of the evaluation team and the Accreditation Commission, the institution provides sound instruction and student services. While candidacy indicates that an institution appears to have the potential to achieve accreditation within the prescribed five-year period, this level of recognition does not guarantee the institution will become accredited." [1] (John Witherspoon College is not yet shown as a Candidate on that website.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Although the college is not yet accredited, the sources substantiate that it is a bona fide school moving in that direction in customary fashion, and I think it has enough coverage in reliable sources to pass GNG, especially given the generous standards that we historically accord to bona fide educational institutions. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

No they don't. Actually we don't even have a reliable source reference that it is even applicant status.GliderMaven (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it is important to keep in mind that this is not like evaluating a rock band or a miracle diet business. While we certainly need and have secondary sources to rely on for most of the article, we can follow the WP:UNIGUIDE section on "Reliable sources," and rely on the college for certain data about itself. While it is not the sort of thing covered in the newspaper, a websearch produces the TRACS "Reaffirmation" of the "Candidacy John Witherspoon College. January 12-15, 2015" on TRACS.org. I think that we have enough to keep(iVote above) this small college.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, fraudulent colleges certainly exist, and nothing overrides the standard verifiability requirements; I note that somebody who seems to be working there is making unsubstantiated claims there that the college is actually already accredited. Whereas, the evidence is lacking that it's even an applicant.GliderMaven (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

There is this: "Union University, will serve as an umbrella university for Witherspoon. Courses will be accredited through Union." from the Rapid City Journal [2].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, provided the text doesn't go outside what that says. It doesn't say that that is how it is; it says that's probably how it was going to be.GliderMaven (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The president, C. Richard Wells is the former president of Criswell College, another small, newish Christian School, and was on the founding faculty of Beeson Divinity School - facts that I mention because his experience would seem to lend credibility to this effort to found a new college. Witherspoon does sound small, and is new, but it does not sound "fraudulent". Small, faith-based colleges (see, for example, Zaytuna College and The King's College (New York)) are founded in the U.S. fairly frequently. Some succeed, others merge or fail, but this is not an unusual event and Witherspoon college seems as real as thee others. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep -- Despite its small size and recent creation, it appears to be offering tertiary (degree) courses, though validated by a third party. Being a small size doesn not seem uncommon for ministerial training colleges, which I thake this to be. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Note: I checked again today and found that this college is now listed as a "Candidate" on the TRACS Member Institutions page, verifying the statement on the college's website. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Note: The College's website statement on accreditation has been revised to include the exact date of receiving accreditation (April 21, 2015), as well as contact information for the accreditation agency in case of questions about the institution's authenticity. --jaminhubner (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2015 (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.