- Category:Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CFD)
I don't think enough debate was given to this topic. I can't accept the organizational reason. Articles can be in many categories. It's far more apporpiate than a list. Reopen CfD discussion. GreenJoe 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to relisting
Endorse deletion as closer - The nomination had been open for 12 days and was uncontested, so the only procedural issue is the limited amount of participation, which is a fair objection. However, in this case, I felt that a lack of participation was an indication of implied consent, for the reason that while articles can be in many categories, they should only be in categories that are defining for the subject (see Wikipedia:Categorization). I saw no fault with the rationale that "institutions by accrediting organisation"-type categories are overcategorisation on the basis of a non-defining characteristic (a comparison could also be drawn to WP:OCAT#Award recipients), and so felt that it was not necessary to relist the discussion or to voice a personal objection. I think the argument for relisting would be stronger if an argument was offered that being accredited by the ATS is a defining characteristic of the various institutions categorised (see here for a complete list). Black Falcon (Talk) 17:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reopen CfD discussion - I don't have strong feelings about this particular category, but it appears to me that the lack of discussion on the CfD page is evidence that no one with an interest in the category was aware of the CfD discussion. CfD is not a high-traffic area and thus is likely to be overlooked, and there is no evidence that the nominator posted notifications on any user-talk pages. Furthermore, the nominator's reasons for deletion deserve broader discussion. Specifically:
- It is not true that "many universities are accredited by multiple associations"; most have just one source of institutional accreditation, although programs within the university may have programmatic accreditation.
- This is just one of many Wikipedia categories that list the schools accredited by a particular accreditor. For others, see Category:School accreditors. If there is a desire to eliminate all such categories, they should be discussed as a group, rather than starting with the category for a relatively small and noncontroversial accreditor.
- There is no basis for the nominator's suggestion that the category membership is unstable. (The nom said "I don't know how often they accredit, and it may not be a good idea to store this kind of periodic and changeable information in an article that is not guaranteed of regular updates.") This is a very stable topic: New institutions potentially eligible for accreditation by Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (i.e., graduate schools of theology) don't exactly spring up overnight, and accreditation is generally awarded (and renewed) for a term of 5 years.
- --Orlady (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You articulated it better than I could. I'm also worried about the precedent this could set, and yes, those who care about this issue didn't know it was on CFD. GreenJoe 18:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- reopen/relist per Orlady- I edit conflicted with Orlady given somewhat similar rationales but Orlady's description above is more thorough and well-written than mine. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If the CFD discussion is reopened, something to which I don't object too much, I would ask that the category itself not be
restored and repopulated unless the CFD discussion ends with a consensus to recreate. The reason for my request is to avoid unnecessary edits should deletion be subsequently endorsed. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. The discussion should be informed by information about the category membership, however. There's a list of accredited institutions on the association's website, and from skimming your contributions log I estimate that there were somewhat more than 200 articles and categories in the category at the time of deletion. --Orlady (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's the reverse of how everything on WP works. The debate should proceed in the usual way, but with the cat left empty, and if, at the end of it, there is no consensus to delete the category it can be re-populated. To insist that consensus must be shown to re-create it requires a double hurdle of succeeding at DRV and a reverse CfD. But certainly, there is no need to re-populate in advance of the CfD being re-run, except to undelete the category page itself, if there was one. Splash - tk 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I miscommunicated my intent. I did not mean to suggest that the CFD should develop a consensus to recreate -- after all, that's the purpose of this DRV. Rather, I meant that the category should not be repopulated prior to the conclusion of the 2nd CFD - if it takes place, that is. I have stricken the part about restoration for clarity. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reopen/Relist per Orlady, whose arguments are well thought out, articulated, and compelling. Only one participant (other than nom) is hardly consensus to do anything and seems to support the contention that the CfD was below the radar screen for those that would have participated. Therefore, even if there were no compelling arguments to keep, it should be reopened on a procedural basis alone. I agree with not recreating/repopulating the cat unless the reopened CfD is closed with consensus to keep as fair. — Becksguy (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close CFD is not a vote, and no quorum is required. Dozens of people saw the debate in progress over its 12 days, dozens edited the page and not a single one saw fit to state any reason why the cat ought be retained. Unlike AFD's which are transcluded on the daily page and there is a possibility that someone can see only the single article being debated, CFD's daily debates is for all to see, even if one only arrives at that page through the category tagged with the notice. Overturning this is bad precedent to require a "quorum" in any of these debates as many people don't add a comment when it appears to be unanimously going one direction or another. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, yes, there is no quorum and silence can be taken as consent on CfD. However, oftentimes a deletion nomination only gets noticed when it is eventually acted upon, and suddenly 200-odd articles make watchlists go ping. In such a situation, when someone does eventually present a well-argued case for re-consideration, I think it is incumbent to re-run the debate with the newly-aware people now ready to join in. Keeping it deleted only because no-one noticed, when someone has now noticed, does not go the way of setting a quorum precedent. Splash - tk 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reopen/Relist ATS accredidation is reconginzed by CHEA and Department of Education as a legitimate accrediting agency. Though this category might seem trival, any accredidiation takes time for the school to be recognized, and last a significant amount of time (ie 5-10+ yrs). Accrediting bodies recognized by CHEA and DoE should be evidence enough for these kind of categories to remain. I second GreenJoe on what kind of precident this might make. Normal users don't check CFD logs, as I am a case. I only knew about the CFD once the deletion happened on one of my watchlists. — PikePlace (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist since it seems there's additional information to be provided in the discussion.DGG (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
