Talk:Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary

Raison d'etre

Yes, DBTS articles were deleted before. I posted this new article because I see basic fallacies in the previously stated views alleging the non-notability of this institution (and other separatist religious institutions of higher education). Two general themes have been that "if it's not accredited, it's not notable" and "Bible colleges are not notable" and "if you can't find one long published work specifically about the school, it's not notable."

I reject lack of accreditation as evidence of non-notability. I have edited many articles about unaccredited institutions (mostly because I was curious about them and wondered why people would choose to attend them). People do knowingly attend unaccredited schools. DBTS is one school that appears to have chosen not to seek accreditation because it believes strongly in separation of religion from secular society.

I think Wikipedia should reject out of hand, as bigotry against evangelical Christians, the viewpoint that bible colleges are not notable. (Note: I am not an evangelical Christian and I would not choose a "biblical higher education" for myself or anyone close to me. I can perceive bigotry without considering myself to be its target.)

Although I have not found any full-length independent books or articles specifically about DBTS (and my research was solely online), based on many different unrelated pieces of online content I have seen, DBTS is highly respected by serious people of a particular theological persuasion. I have found websites of many alumni (mostly ministers, this being a theological seminary) who are proud of having attended DBTS, and ministers and bible college faculty encourage young people to attend DBTS. The statement by Maranatha Baptist Bible College that they will hire its graduates even though the school is unaccredited is particularly interesting in that connection. Additionally, I think the existence of detractors -- multiple religious websites that attack DBTS for its faculty's views on the King James version of the Bible -- is solid independent indication that this institution has been "noted."

Finally, I was impressed to read comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools) asserting (without rebuttal) that higher education institutions are inherently notable. One user said that "colleges of higher education have in practice long been accepted as [notable]." Another said: "I doubt that anyone would advocate the deletion of even the most obscure community college article. Yet some colleges may not be all that notable. Why then do so few colleges came up for AfD? I posit that it is because people know in their hearts that Wikipedia users expect an article on them." Later that same user said "I'm just pointing out that users and editors expect Wikipedia to have an article on every college and university in the world." Based on that expectation, I suggest that users and editors would expect Wikipedia to have an article on DBTS.

--Orlady (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

An additional point that was presented at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 13 was the suggestion that I should write an article about the Inter-City Baptist Church of Allen Park, Michigan, and merge some content about DBTS into that article. That suggestion did not work for me. The Inter-City Baptist Church is a local church, AFAICT. Most of what I know about the church is that it is affiliated with DBTS. DBTS, as an educational institution, has a much wider reach than the church that stands behind it. --Orlady (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hangon

This is not substantially identical to the deleted version, and I believe that the changes address the reasons for which the earlier material was deleted. --Orlady (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This third version has a number of citations, but I have doubts whether they address the previously highlighted problem of in-depth coverage by independent sources. Nevertheless, the question may better be discussed, in case of a G4 deletion presumably at (a second) deletion review with a relist as possible outcome. Or another (third) time in a deletion discussion, allowing this time for a full discussion (without invoking CSD G4). Given that the recreated article is now around a few months, the latter may make more sense.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)