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. Majorly (hot!) 11:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peace River Bible Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unnotable, non-accredited school. Has about 200 students (graduates, distance learning?) (not sourced), and lacks independent sources to show notability. Below, even the creator of the article votes only "weak keep." Arbustoo 01:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No claim to notability. CitiCat 04:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. LexisNexis turns up articles from one Alberta newspaper on the Institute's growth in students and on a recently appointed president, and a Western Report article about a firefighting course offered there in partnership with the local fire department. It looks like the college scrapes in as notable per WP:ORG. EALacey 11:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, those sound trival, and thus fail WP:NOTE. Local newspaper mentions don't equate to notability for an encycolpedia. Arbustoo 15:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. According to WP:NOTE, "non-trivial" "means that sources address the subject directly and no original research is needed to extract the content"; I think there are articles about the college that qualify. And WP:NOTE only requires that sources be reliable and independent of the subject, so I can't see how local newspapers are excluded. EALacey 17:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment A 2004 local newspaper article about a "growth spurt" makes this notable for wikipedia? Arbustoo 02:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Improve, or at least more for improvement. --Remi 15:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? NeoFreak 17:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a vote Remi, tell us why it is notable. Arbustoo 04:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete totally unsourced and the sources mentioned above. Not a single Gnews hit and no non-trivial mention even in a local paper that I can find. Can always be recreated if anyone does come up with legitimate grounds for WP:N — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed. Eusebeus 06:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability and its only attribution is to its homepage. NeoFreak 17:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nicely referenced article on a school dating to 1933. Plus they use to hold the water balloon record. I see no compelling reason for deletion here. --JJay 20:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arbustoo (talk • contribs) 02:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • So old and notable that all we have is local newspapers? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; not a directory for all unaccredited schools. A local church is older than this, and has more people attend. That doesn't mean we keep all articles about churches. Your average person's name will be in a local newspaper 4 times in their 78 year life. However, that doesn't cut it for inclusion. Arbustoo 02:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first comment is misplaced and should be stricken. Regarding your second comment, i.e. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; not a directory for all unaccredited schools: see the directory found at List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Also see the list of unaccredited schools found at [1] or [2]. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is also functioning very much as a directory of unaccredited schools. --JJay 02:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, so you don't have sources to prove notability? Even the person who wrote the article voted "weak keep". Feel free to offer sources to show the creator and I otherwise. Arbustoo 02:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article creator submitted a one line stub [3]. While I am perfectly happy with his comment below, his opinion has no greater weight here than yours or mine. The article has since been vastly expanded by other editors and is fully referenced to five different sources. --JJay 02:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Vastly expanded" = Five mentions in three local publications dating back 12 years. Arbustoo 06:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Vastly expanded = the difference between [4] and [5]. --JJay 17:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Vastly expanded = a waterball fight and a firefighter mention in the local press? That's a very low bar of inclusion. Can't say I'm suprised about your claim though. Arbustoo 17:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Gotta go with EALacey here. The school was the main topic of a small number of newspaper articles, so I think it satisfies WP:N as it is presently written (but just barely). --Butseriouslyfolks 02:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom, non notable school --Greatestrowerever 10:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. This article was already linked to from three others before it was created. --Rosencrantz1 20:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rosencrantz1, the creator of the article, voted only "weak keep." Thus, if the creator doesn't even feel there is enough notability it shows that there is little reason to see this as a "keep." Arbustoo 22:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per WP:ORG and EALacey's notable list of Lexis articles. Wikipedia has articles about high schools and grade schools, this doesn't seem much worse than those. --Dual Freq 03:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We shouldn't compare articles, but if you insist; this place has less than 250 students when a high school has between 1,000-3,000. Do public schools make money? Peace River Bible Institute, privately owned, charges $4,000 dollars a year (not including dorm fees). Should we base out votes of WP:CORP? If so this fails as well.
• What articles make this pass WP:ORG? The local article about the promotion of a dean or the local 1995 article about firefighting? Or maybe the waterball fight? Out of this institutions 70 + years all the coverage found is 5 articles from three different papers about local events. There is nothing to write a real article about.
• That is why the creator voted a mere weak keep. Arbustoo 05:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do public schools make money? Interesting question, they certainly take it, just look a your property tax bill. I'm paying over $1500 a year for public school's I've never even set foot in, at least for $4k you get to attend classes. I'm fairly sure I could find a high school article with <500 enrollment and at least the students are not perpetually vandalizing this article like most of the high school articles here. With 6 references, it is better referenced than the average high school article. The articles you've mentioned sound notable enough for inclusion, what else are you looking for, a New York Times review of a religious college in Alberta? Sexsmith, Alberta doesn't sound like a town that is likely to have their local newspaper archived in Lexis Nexis anyway. Looking at the article a second time, it looks like a decent stub with room to grow and doesn't need to be deleted. I'm not saying I'd want to attend, but that's not justification to delete the article. --Dual Freq 08:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Public schools are paid for by tax money, and thus important to society. That is the rationale for keeping all public schools. This, on the other hand, is privately operated and not even accredited. The rest of your comment is unclear. We don't have sources to write a decent article. You have sources about a waterball fight, and firefighters from 10 years ago. If that's reason for inclusion, fine. But that seems to be a very low bar.
• Should we include keep biographies of people who have 5 local newspaper mentions? Or you just think we should keep this unaccredited schools with 5 mentions? Arbustoo 17:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been relisted for more opinions. Arbustoo 02:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete. Non-notable Bible college even in its own hometown. Fails WP:LOCAL miserably. (sigh) *I* have been mentioned more times in the newspaper than this college. --Charlene 04:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per other keeps. Also tag as necessary for quality improvements. --Remi 04:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You voted once above saying keep without providing any evidence for it. You cannot do that a second time. However, since you did vote K twice, please explain how it meets WP:ORG. After all someone asked you why, and you never explained your vote.Arbustoo 04:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article is referenced and satisfies WP:N. Also this article is only a week old. It has the potential to expane. meshach 16:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, appears to have sources that establish notability. - Chardish 19:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Chardish. --164.107.223.217 20:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did you look closely at those links? How do they meet WP:ORG? One of the sources just says they claim accreditation from a group, but that group isn't an recognized accreditation associations of higher learning. Thus, I don't see its value. Is the two sources about a waterballon fight convince you that it passes WP:ORG? Arbustoo 22:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbustoo 22:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I actually did review the article and it seems valid. Sure, everything can be improved. I agree there. --164.107.223.217 00:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment This anonymous user has voted Keep in every AfD he's voted in. JuJube 00:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? If I find one that I agree should be deleted, I promise that I will vote as such, but if I have a reason to keep, why not share it? Should I comment that you mostly vote to delete articles based on your recent history as evidence of something? --164.107.223.217 00:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote. You must provide proof for your claims. Arbustoo 05:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I had not thought it notable, but the references have shown otherwise. If the argument is that N is not sufficiently proven by published references in RSs, that should first be discussed more generally. I don't think it's the generally accepted one at WP. DGG 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Somewhat sloppy article in areas, but holds a world record, and could be expanded into a good article. Jmlk17 04:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-read the article. A local paper (and only a local) says it held the record for a waterball was beat by another school. Importantly, if you look at the date of the sources it says another place beat its record in April 2005, but the article published in June 2005. So what that means is we CANNOT find a source that it earned the "record," but rather you have a local paper say it held the record. Fairly shakey grounds for inclusion.
  • What sources do you know of that can allow it to "be expanded into a good article"? Arbustoo 05:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.