I have copied the debatye here and removed the editorialising and other tetchiness from the main debate. I've tried to leave substantive discussion of the article, apologies if I've got that wrong at any point. Just zis Guy you know? 09:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Arbustoo is known for lying and having a grave POV problem. Itake 20:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack removed[1] then added again[2] then removed [3] then added again[4]. Arbusto 22:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• By Arbusto: "Comment: Itake hints that Gastrich sent him to this AfD to sway this vote[34] Thus, 9 out of 12 keep votes are suspect. Arbusto 20:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC) "

and:

By Arbusto: "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) "

Yes people, its true. Hypocrisy man has struck again! Itake 22:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't believe an AfD is the place for personal attacks by Itake, I recommend all users view here[5] to see Itake long history of attacks, false claims, and other POV relating to Jason Gastrich. Arbusto 04:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And anyone interested in the other side of the story can view Arbusto's history of false claims, grave POV, and personal attacks. Itake 13:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I looked at the Wiki4Christ web site and it gives away free email accounts, so we don't know if Gastrich is contacting anyone or not. The one person who said he was contacted by Wiki4Christ said he didn't know who sent the email[6] (which I find strange because someone should have signed it).--No Jobs 09:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We only know of one person who owns, operates and can send mail to that list. But it is moot, since contacting people off Wikipedia to solicit votes is clearly, per the Gastrich ArbCom precedent, unacceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 12:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:' No Jobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a suspcted sock puppet of Jason Gastrich, the owner and operator of the website in question and a banned wikipedia users. See history and user talk page for ignoring questions about identity. Arbusto 20:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Wiki4Christ (operated by banned user Jason Gastrich) is stated to have emailed an appeal to save this article. This may explain the large number of editors whose only previous activity was in response to Wiki4Christ's previous mailings - which is part of what got Gastrich banned in the first place. No_Jobs (talk · contribs) is currently blocked for attacks, tendentious editing and as a suspected sock of a banned user. Just zis Guy you know? 09:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a category is fine. This is just listcruft. Stifle 20:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Stifle. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Nomination was a bit disingenuous, since a prime reason was that "the list was removed several times" on the TRACS entry by Arbustoo. This list is informative and good and resembles other, such lists. Definitely keep. --Doe, John 21:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment: It looks like this account is deserted as the person behind the sock has moved on. See "keep" votes at the bottom. Arbusto 18:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

No, its just that you notice it when it comes to YOUR religion[7] Arbusto 00:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [8]. I guess you didn't look close enough at my history. Arbusto 00:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think I care what pages you created or not? It doesn't change anything, neither does your token page deletion of the "Southern Association of Colleges and Schools". Itake 22:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you referring to? I did not create SACS nor put an AfD on that page. I did remove a pointless list from the page one month ago. Arbusto 17:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Wtf is it with you people and deleting articles all the time? Itake 23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hm, I don't know. Most likely it has something to do with the cabal of people on this site that won't stop at anything (including abusing admin powers) to persecute every article even remotely died to christianity. And just fyi, I can vote whatever I want wherever I want. Itake 19:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting response. Arbusto 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Itake, who are you accusing of abusing admin powers? That is a serious matter. If you have evidence of abuse of admin powers you need to take it to ArbCom. You will see from recent arbitrations that not even Tony Sidaway can get away with abusing admin powers. Or is this just another case of vague arm-waving about rouge admins? Just zis Guy you know? 14:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Itake hints that a user sent him to this AfD to vote keep.[9] Arbusto 20:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FeloniousMonk abused his admin powers. Itake 20:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are you referring to this?[10] Arbusto 21:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 [11], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Regarding your addition [12], 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 Ivy League, Little Ivies, Seven Sisters, List of NCAA Division I Institutions, List of NAIA Institutions, etc? Furthermore, if you really believe it is a fork (which you just added to your comment above), then merge it back.-- JJay 01:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 [13]. Arbusto 01:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 [14], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good, then as supported by this [15], 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)[reply]

Wrong again: You are just lazy and don't really care about quality. Had you clicked on the link [16] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Delete Would work better as a category. JoshuaZ 03:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can someone please explain to me what would be gained by having a frequently changing set as a list rather than a category? This seems like precisely the sort of thing categories are defined for. JoshuaZ 03:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with nom - pointless list. Eusebeus 07:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to TRACS --Yonghokim 07:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, better done by category, which already exists. Proto||type 08:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is exactly what categories are for. Just zis Guy you know? 09:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Either merge this with TRACS, create a category, or just keep the article.Sidious1701 12:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - there already is a category, which is at Category:Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools Proto||type 15:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Category was created after the start of this AfD. It does not include schools for which we need pages. -- JJay 21:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is what Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Colleges and Universities is for. Arbusto 00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps. Of course, none of the TRACS schools are included on that list. -- JJay 01:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Then you are welcome to add them to the list. JoshuaZ 01:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but they are just fine right now on this list, or even better merged to TRACS. In any case, I have no doubt that the Wikiproject missing article list will be deleted too, sooner or later, just as soon as someone nominates it. Just think, a list that encourages people to write articles on schools. Now why would we need that? -- JJay 01:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is likely to nominate a project-space article listing articles for universities which need to be created, even though lists of redlinks tend (as with the Schools project) to spawn substubs of no encycloaedic value. If this was in project space - part of the Christianity wikiproject, for example - I think it's unlikely it would have been nominated. As it stands what this list does is to duplicate the list at the TRACS website (only with much less detail and not necessarily up-to-date). Just zis Guy you know? 09:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hayson 14:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment: Possible meat puppet or sock puppet for Jason Gastrich (the person banned by ArCom and who is suspected of being Doe, John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who created this POV fork). See user's history, no actual edit on articles in the last four months and last votes were "keep" articles relating to LBU created by Gastrich. Which as noted on those pages, people were sent there to vote "keep" at the request of Jason Gastrich This[17] keep vote relates to a suspected Gastrich sock and is the one of two edits made in the last month. Before that the only edits in the month of Jan 2006 were "keep" votes for articles that were all written by Jason Gastrich [18] [19] [20][21] [22][23][24][25] Arbusto 21:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User admits he was sent here by wikipedia4christ, ran by Jason Gastrich and notes he is not a sock puppet[26]. Arbusto 23:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are plenty of lists like this on wikipedia. Scifiintel 15:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possible meat puppet. This is this user's first and only edit in three and a half/four months. Arbusto 21:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: user has not touched any articles or made an votes since the vote above. Arbusto 18:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, agree that it works better as a category, otherwise, it's a POV-driven list, as some of the "debate" indicates. - WarriorScribe 19:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would know, since you and your friends have been on every anti-gastrich POV deleting spree on this site Itake 08:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait are you admitting that a banned user, as a sock puppet, created this POV fork? Arbusto 16:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - should be worked as a category. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 23:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. And expand the list of members as possible. --Shindig Me 19:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the above user registered on March 29, 2006 [27]--Jersey Devil 22:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the above user just discovered I voted opposite them on the following AfD[28] and is trolling me. --Shindig Me 22:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A list of TRACS schools is a good thing. --No Jobs 06:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No_Jobs (talk · contribs) registered March 29, has no edits other than this AfD and whitewashing of related articles. Why did nobody warn this user of 3RR? I have now done so. Just zis Guy you know? 13:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And check out the edit summaries. They have a rather familiar tone and style to them. - WarriorScribe 13:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, POV fork, listcruft. --Terence Ong 10:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stifle. Guettarda 13:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per No Jobs. --Angelina Y. 17:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Angelina Y.'s 4th edit ever and "angie for short" is classic Gastrich. User registed during the time period when Louisiana Baptist University was semi protected because of Gastrich hitting the accreditation with socks. Also user made a revert to maintain another suspected Gastrich sock's comments at the talk origins article[29]. Arbusto 18:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Currently, there are a total of 6 keep votes from suspected sock puppets/new users. Arbusto 18:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I can't imagine why it should been deleted.
  ♥♥♥Gubb ✍
  17:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep the article. Very good resource--Michaelwmoss 22:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The above user Michaelwmoss (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is another puppet. JoshuaZ 22:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It sure is. His history has keep votes for some of Louisiana Baptist Univeristy's unnotable alumni.[30][31]And guess what this user voted on a recent AfD of mine to keep. [32]That unnotable creationist AfD became a "no consensus" after numerous suspect users came to the vote. Arbusto 22:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also more to the point, the user has only 3 edits other than those edits. JoshuaZ 22:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty bad seeing users with only a few edits sway past AfDs of mine vote keep here. Arbusto 22:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Proof of meat pupperty to keep this page. User admits someone contacted him[33] to vote keep. Arbusto 22:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: And yep its Gastrich[34]. Arbusto 23:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've fallen asleep. I thought the gastrich affair had died off.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete This is just more bigotry against Christians. Rookwood 23:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What a shock this is a new user and his second edit. Arbusto 23:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if voting on AfD's was reserved for you wikifacists with +10k edits and no life outside your computer, we would have a very, very one-sided view represented on this site. Itake 12:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a user who makes edits like Gastrich who has a long history documented history of using sock puppets. And when a new user comes along and uses his first edit to vote in a contraversial AfD along side 8 other suspected socks you don't think it should been mentioned? Especially when some of their last votes/edits were to sway a AfD of mine a month ago.Arbusto 19:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. I belive in a wikipedia where you can vote your mind on a subject even if you are a new user, without the cabal of "experience editors", say computernerds, come and accuse you of stuff. Itake 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Ő[reply]

• Delete The blue links are so few in number they can go into a list within the main article; if the numbers grow they can be categorised. --kingboyk 23:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruft that can be a category instead if it grows. Harvestdancer 16:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Currently, 8 out of the 12 keep votes are made by suspected sock puppets or meat puppets. Arbusto 20:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• And 99% of the delete votes are made by the same people who prosecuted gastrich the last time by abusing their admin powers to get those who voted "keep" banned. No doubt if this blows up into a big fight, they will do the same again. Between "suspected" sockpuppets and proven admin power abusers, I choose the sockpuppets. Itake 20:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those people are regular users of wikipedia who consistently edit and vote in AfDs. Where if "proof" of these "admin power abusers"? And also over 50 people voted to condemn Gastrich only two voted not to; you and Uncle Davey. Not all delete votes particpated in the RfC and not all 50 RfC votes voted delete here. Arbusto 20:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, please be civil.--Jersey Devil 20:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they are part of the regular users. Those who think they are better then the rest of us, because unlike the rest of us they don't move away from their computer chairs. Good for me and Uncle Davey that we had to courage to stand up, even though we risked getting banned for our opinions. You want proof? Just go to the old AfD discussion pages for the list of louisiana baptist university people, and the entries for some of the individuals there. See how the people that had admin powers temp banned users for "violating civility rules", when they did infact not violate said rules after the first warnings. The admins in question however, continued to violate those rules. But they didn't ban themselves, nor did they ban each other. Not suprisingly, they were all on the "delete" side of the vote. Itake 20:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Itake hints that Gastrich sent him to this AfD to sway this vote[35] Thus, 9 out of 12 keep votes are suspect. Arbusto 20:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't, stop lying. Its embarrasing. Itake 20:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were you contacted by someone to come to this AfD? (Note: this question was removed[36]) Arbusto 23:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Myself. Itake 23:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand please clarify. Did someone relating to Gastrich, wiki4christ, or another person/group contact you about this? Arbusto 23:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO FFS! Itake 00:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering the question, but you could have been more forthright on your talk. So out of the two people asked Itake denied it and Harrison admitted to it. Arbusto 00:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Stifle FloNight ^talk 00:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Moe ε 02:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This list adds to Wikipedia. --Jon Calla 03:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User's first edits ever are from few minutes ago(first edit was at 03:53 and TRACS vote at 03:55). 9/13 keep votes (excludes Itake) are suspect or new users. Arbusto 03:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the user made his first edit on April 1, 2006. [37]--Jersey Devil 04:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A list like this helps us keep track of TRACS members. --Nutter1 07:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the user's 6th ever edit. 10/14 keep votes (excludes Itake) are suspect or new users. Arbusto 08:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the comments of the socks have been removed from the main page I'll do an unoffical tally: 10/14 keep votes are by new users/suspected socks. Leaving those suspect votes out, my count is: 4 keep votes verses 15 delete votes. With the deceitfulness, the pure votes without looking into the contr. history is highly misleading. Arbusto 09:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No actually, its 14 keep votes against 15 delete votes. Definently not a consensus. None are proven sockpuppets, infact there's nothing but the unfounded and unproven accusations from Arbusto (proven to have lied on several previous occassions) so I think we can safely say the article is staying. Itake 13:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, it is no keep votes to no delete votes, because this is not a vote. The closing admin is free to ignore some contributions, and to place more weight on those which are supported by policy. The closing admin may be particularly swayed by the fact that if we have a lost of institutions accredited by each accrediting body we woul end up with lists of thousands or tens of thousands of entries. Theyu may be disposed to move it to Project space, or to decide that it genuinely is redundant per category. But it is not a vote. Just zis Guy you know? 16:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]