Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/List of TRACS members: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:07, 28 March 2006 editHayson1991 (talk | contribs)242 edits →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 15:44, 28 March 2006 edit undoFish and karate (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators36,446 edits →[]: commentNext edit →
Line 17: Line 17:
::*Regarding your addition , are you suggesting that TRACS is patent nonsense? If not, why can't the schools be listed? What is the difference, really, between this list, and ], ], ], ], ], etc? Furthermore, if you really believe it is a fork (which you just added to your comment above), then merge it back.-- ] 01:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC) ::*Regarding your addition , are you suggesting that TRACS is patent nonsense? If not, why can't the schools be listed? What is the difference, really, between this list, and ], ], ], ], ], etc? Furthermore, if you really believe it is a fork (which you just added to your comment above), then merge it back.-- ] 01:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
::: You comparing TRACS to the NCAA? I fail to understand the connection. It should not be listed because (as I wrote in the nom.) "] has a list on their webpage, which is more accurate and informative than this control-c list. Interested parties can visit the TRACS page and link for further information." The list is updated on the TRACS page according to schools that lost accreditation and earned accreditation. Most recently in Feb. 2006. There is no reason to think the wiki page will be updated to be accurate. Thus, the information will be incorrect and provide misleading details on school accreditation. ::: You comparing TRACS to the NCAA? I fail to understand the connection. It should not be listed because (as I wrote in the nom.) "] has a list on their webpage, which is more accurate and informative than this control-c list. Interested parties can visit the TRACS page and link for further information." The list is updated on the TRACS page according to schools that lost accreditation and earned accreditation. Most recently in Feb. 2006. There is no reason to think the wiki page will be updated to be accurate. Thus, the information will be incorrect and provide misleading details on school accreditation.

::: If this list is kept then the other accrediting agnecies will also have lists. That includes ], which accredits 10,000 schools. Do you want a list of 10,000 schools on wikipedia pertaining to one accreditation group? Or the 13,000 schools accredited by ], which I removed the beginnings of the list one month ago . ] 01:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC) ::: If this list is kept then the other accrediting agnecies will also have lists. That includes ], which accredits 10,000 schools. Do you want a list of 10,000 schools on wikipedia pertaining to one accreditation group? Or the 13,000 schools accredited by ], which I removed the beginnings of the list one month ago . ] 01:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
::::Those are all very weak arguments. What may or may not exist on the web is not my problem. Almost every topic we cover here is covered in greater depth somewhere else. That should never be an excuse to remove content. The bottom line for me is that if we are going to do school lists such as these , I can find no reason to remove a list of accredited schools from a group such as TRACS for which we have a page. In my view, it is just as essential to know what institutions are under the TRACS umbrella as with any other accreditation agency. -- ] 01:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC) ::::Those are all very weak arguments. What may or may not exist on the web is not my problem. Almost every topic we cover here is covered in greater depth somewhere else. That should never be an excuse to remove content. The bottom line for me is that if we are going to do school lists such as these , I can find no reason to remove a list of accredited schools from a group such as TRACS for which we have a page. In my view, it is just as essential to know what institutions are under the TRACS umbrella as with any other accreditation agency. -- ] 01:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Line 40: Line 39:
* '''Delete''' This is exactly what categories are for. ] 09:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC) * '''Delete''' This is exactly what categories are for. ] 09:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Either merge this with ], create a category, or just keep the article.] 12:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Either merge this with ], create a category, or just keep the article.] 12:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
*:'''Comment''' - there already is a category, which is at ''']''' ]<font color="#555555"><b>||</b></font><small>]</small> 15:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' ] 14:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' ] 14:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:44, 28 March 2006

List of TRACS members

Pointless list the author created to link Christian schools. The links were removed, but the list lacks importance. TRACS has a list on their webpage, which is more accurate and informative than this control-c list. Interested parties can visit the TRACS page and link for further information. This is a POV fork after the list was removed several times. Arbusto 20:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Doe, John created the article/POV fork and is a suspected sock puppet who has already been blocked once. See User talk:Doe, John for further details. Arbusto 21:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Arbusto is repeatedly seeking to delete Christian articles. Why doesn't he do that for any other religion? I can understand only adding to the stock of articles about one religion - a person may not be particularly interested in all the religions, but deleting all articles of one religion has got to put a question mark over someone's neutrality. Uncle Davey (Talk) 23:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
No, its just that you notice it when it comes to YOUR religion Arbusto 00:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Looking at your past contribs, Uncle Davey makes a good point. Furthermore, just because you nominated that secular list for deletion, it doesn't mean that you're not against Christian entries. Try again and do try and keep up and reply to the issue, instead of blowing a smokescreen. --Doe, John 00:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What does ANYONE's religion have to do with keeping a pointless article that is better kept and already linked on the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools page, "Dr."? Arbusto 00:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Guess who created the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools page? Me, I created it. I guess that was part of an anti-Christian agenda too! See the list I removed at Southern Association of Colleges and Schools one month ago . I guess you didn't look close enough at my history. Arbusto 00:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What's with one suspected Gastrich puppet and two Gastrich defenders all voting the same in this AfD? Arbusto 00:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see any problem with this since we have an article on TRACS and these schools apparently exist. I also note that this nom tried to have this list speedied as patent nonsense , which looks like bad faith to me. Furthermore, the so called POV fork seems to have resulted from this nom's edit warring to remove the list. Lastly, what difference does it make that these are Christian schools? For all I care, they could be Jewish, Muslim, or Rastafarian. Why did that need to be immediately specified in the first words of this nom? At the very least, why aren't we talking about merging it back to TRACS? -- JJay 00:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I put the speedy tag because "this article provides no meaningful content." As for your bad faith comment, you might want to see who created the TRACS page. This is a fork that is why it is up for AfD. Arbusto 00:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well that qualifies as a significant misuse of CSD. I suggest you review CSD criteria before mistagging something as nonsense. -- JJay 00:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
You comparing TRACS to the NCAA? I fail to understand the connection. It should not be listed because (as I wrote in the nom.) "TRACS has a list on their webpage, which is more accurate and informative than this control-c list. Interested parties can visit the TRACS page and link for further information." The list is updated on the TRACS page according to schools that lost accreditation and earned accreditation. Most recently in Feb. 2006. There is no reason to think the wiki page will be updated to be accurate. Thus, the information will be incorrect and provide misleading details on school accreditation.
If this list is kept then the other accrediting agnecies will also have lists. That includes North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, which accredits 10,000 schools. Do you want a list of 10,000 schools on wikipedia pertaining to one accreditation group? Or the 13,000 schools accredited by Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, which I removed the beginnings of the list one month ago . Arbusto 01:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Those are all very weak arguments. What may or may not exist on the web is not my problem. Almost every topic we cover here is covered in greater depth somewhere else. That should never be an excuse to remove content. The bottom line for me is that if we are going to do school lists such as these , I can find no reason to remove a list of accredited schools from a group such as TRACS for which we have a page. In my view, it is just as essential to know what institutions are under the TRACS umbrella as with any other accreditation agency. -- JJay 01:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, we'll have a list of 10,000 schools linked at North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and 13,000 at Southern Association of Colleges and Schools because you want to keep this list of around 40 schools, which only 12 have wikipedia articles.
If you want to know "know what institutions are under the TRACS umbrella" you could just visit the TRACS category or their website.Arbusto 01:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I could get all info on every topic elsewhere, but I choose to use wikipedia. Otherwise, all the lists you mentioned are good with me. For more, see response on talk page. -- JJay 01:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yep you made it very clear that you have no problem with a 13,000 school list for one accreditation group on your talk. I strongly differ. Arbusto 02:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
That would seem to make sense as you spend a lot of time nominating sometimes nominate lists for deletion. Of course, this list is a wee bit smaller that that at present. Could probably be nicely merged into TRACS, which lacks content.-- JJay 02:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
These attacks against me tiresome. One person says I am on an anti-Christian bent. Then you claim I spend my time nominating lists for deletion. One person says I am anti- this another says I am anti- that. Argue with facts, reasons and sources. Trying to attribute false motives to me doesn't help your argument. Grow up. Arbusto 02:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What attacks? What are you talking about? You nominated this for deletion and have other lists on Afd. You also indicated on my user page that you have removed other lists from wikipedia. You felt the need to say that you "strongly differ" with me on school lists using an example with no application to the current discussion and which should have been obvious given our positions. As for facts, this list has 40 schools on it, not 10,200 or 13,000. -- JJay 02:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I am talking about "you spend a lot of time nominating lists for deletion." Which is not true nor relevant. Arbusto 03:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I "sometimes nominate lists" now? That's news to me. I think I have only nominated two lists ever (this and the alpha list). Arbusto 03:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Good, then as supported by this , all my statements here are now perfectly factual. This list has 40 schools on it. It should be kept or merged with TRACS, so people interested can know what schools have been accredited by TRACS. -- JJay 03:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Wrong again: You are just lazy and don't really care about quality. Had you clicked on the link you would have noticed I deleted the list of three schools off the article page because I didn't want the other 12,997 to be added. I did not, as you claimed, "nominate" that list for AfD. Thusly, are not "factually correct." Like I said before, its tiresome. Arbusto 03:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not going to waste anymore time arguing semantics with you. I guess I'm just lazy that way. In any case, to use your own words, you "strongly differ" with my opinions on the utility of these types of lists. You have used all kinds of arguments for why this should be deleted (pointless, POV fork, no meaningful content, misleading, list on other web site, will result in 13,000 school list, etc), none of which I agree with. Since you are highly unlikely to withdraw this nom, and I will never revise my vote, this discussion now serves absolutely no purpose. -- JJay 04:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)