Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohio Womens Methodist Seminary

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 15:26, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ohio Womens Methodist Seminary

Hopefully this is a no-brainer not deserving the space and attention needed to present my complex evidence on the, arguably, bad faith I think the article was created in. I present several reasons why this page does not deserve its Wikipedia space:

(1) Accuracy dispute. I could not find a source that specifies the existence of the school (at least under the name "Ohio Womens Methodist Seminary"). The burden of proving the existence of such a school should be on the article's creator, not me, though. Online searches show no results under this name...which merits the suspicion, that even if such a school did exist under this name, it was so non-notable that it isn't cited in any documents by anyone these days.

(2) To begin with, there is no source that specifies Ohio Womens Methodist Seminary as the actual name of a school in Delaware, Ohio at that time! This violates the rationale for pages not to be "too secret" (i.e. "Secret societies are unverifiable and often non-notable". Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. Almost by definition, the world cannot verify things about secret societies). This is not a "secret society" per se, but the existence of the school should be verifiable through paper or online sources.

(3) The article was created by a user user:Stude62 who had created several other articles that violate, or are on the border of vilaoting, the vanity policy of Wikipedia ("vanity" is a shorthand for "This page is about a person, institution, or organization who Wikipedia's guidelines suggest does not merit an article"). On his user page he states of recent times find myself up to my eyeballs in Methodist Episcopal Church history (my gr gr gr great grandfather was an M.E. circuit preacher in central Ohio) and defending it from those who should know better, but are too wrapped up in their own feelings and perceptions to know any different.

Several other article created by the same user are Monnett Weekend, Orra E. Monnette Mary Monnett Bain Monnett Hall and Monnett Bain Davis. All of them debatably non-notable and written with the sole purpose to "defending it from those who should know better". The Monnett Weekend page was recently listed on VfD and removed. The article listed on here honor the exact same topic and should be removed as well.

(4) There is a separate page about the real name of the institution at the time: Ohio Wesleyan Female College which no longer exists but is nevertheless legit. I suggest that some of the information be moved to that page as it was the official name of the female college.

(5) This is a "POV fork". Debatably the most notable part of the article is about Mary Monnett Bain. That article already presents the arguably "notable" part on there.

(6) Several Wesleyan alumni have agreed that such a name Ohio Womens Methodist Seminary is not notable even among the Ohio Wesleyan University "family".

(7) Finally, one can argue that Mary Monnett Bain is arguably worthy an article herself vilating notability ("non-notable" or "nn" are shorthands for "Something that (the voter thinks) is unimportant due to its obscurity or lack of differentiation from others of its type"). There was a separate VfD on that article but it is not the objec of this VfD.

If the article is related to something more common or well-known like the Ohio Wesleyan Female College, consider merging it with that.

My job is done here.

Patnaik 16:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep to confirm details. Monnett Hall, Monnett Weekend and Mary Monnett Bain all check out in external sources. The entry on Leroy A. Belt on the official history page of Ohio Northern University, here, says he "served as financial agent for Monnett Hall, an independent women's academy, which merged with Ohio Wesleyan in 1877." So you're alleging this article that centrally claims the quickly provable fact that Monnett Hall, an independent women's institution, merged into Ohio Wesleyan University is "bad faith?" The only things that would need further research are whether Ohio Womens Methodist Seminary was a name or the formal name of Monett Hall. There's no comprehensive information about historical schools on the web, but this obviously could be referenced with printed sources in libraries and maybe even an historical plaque onsite. Patnaik, what is your "complex evidence" of bad faith? Btw, the article is by the apparently credible User:Stude62. Samaritan 15:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Fascinating article, fascinating topic. That's assuming the current article is accurate, but that hasn't been questioned above. So I'm very puzzled as to why it's listed for deletion. Please, someone explain. Andrewa 15:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • There is bad blood between Patnaik and Stude62, who has left Wikipedia. Patnaik's contribs, Stude62's contribs, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stude62. *sigh* Samaritan 15:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Thank you. Having skimmed the RfC, and noting that there is nothing on the article's talk page about any accuracy dispute (perhaps I should have said that before), I reluctantly conclude that this VfD nomination was made in bad faith. I nearly said that before too, the term no-brainer is a portent. No change of vote. Andrewa 16:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Dear me, what a mess has now been made of the discussion above. Is it coincidence that the argument Patnaik has obscured by his carelessness is against him? It's not good form either way. No change of vote. Andrewa 18:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I've tried to put comments back in their original order. Jni05, please stop changing the orders of other people's comments; thank you. Samaritan 19:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks for your efforts, and they have addressed some of my concerns. But there's still the problem that Patnaik has simply changed his introduction, rather than answering the comments that were based on it. Andrewa 02:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• For the record, can anyone point to a source that this is the actual name? How is it possible not to find a single source? The real name is Ohio Wesleyan Female College. There is a separate page about that one that is legit. Patnaik 16:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • • • • • • Ironically, do you think your "this VfD nomination was made in bad faith" violates your informal MWOT principle of "minimise waste of time and not get distracted into debates that have no bearing on the goal"? Patnaik 21:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Girls for God. Klonimus 15:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Isn't it entirely possible and believable Ohio Womens Methodist Seminary either co-existed with Ohio Wesleyan Female College or was an original or alternate name name of OWFC? (For anyone else wondering about the Wesleyan/Methodist distinction, Ohio Wesleyan University, per its article Patnaik was the last to edit, was founded by Methodists in 1841; the Wesleyan Methodist church formally split from the Methodists in 1843.) Comparing a rural 19th century women's college to a "secret society" because Google provides no hits overstates and assumes bad faith. It's certainly verifiable one way or the other with hard copy sources, and we should assume good faith on the part of the creator. The article doesn't mention any man, so it doesn't seem "glorify" Stude62's great+grandfather as the nominator charges. In Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Monnett Weekend, it was not deleted for the reasons Patnaik alleges. And an article about a college is not a "POV fork" of an article about a patron of the college. Samaritan 17:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • For the record and on the "POV fork" argument, when the article was created there were the following articles created: Monnett Weekend, Orra E. Monnette Mary Monnett Bain Monnett Hall and Monnett Bain Davis. See the link?? 3 of them have already been removed at various points in the VfD process. RobOWU 20:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable even for OWU alums.Jni05 17:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: See also archived discussions at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mary Monnett Bain and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Monnett Weekend. See this previous version of this page if you want to untangle the sequence of edits above. No change of vote. Andrewa 18:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if this is worth an article, it should be folded into the Ohio Wesleyan Female College. According to the Google test which says that "Unencyclopedic or spurious topics. Some topics introduced to Wikipedia articles don't belong here. Some of these can be detected by running a Google search on a relevant phrase and counting the number of search results. This technique works reasonably well for weeding out hoaxes, fictions, and personal theories and hypotheses. It can also be used to ascertain whether a topic is of sufficiently broad interest to merit inclusion in the wiki, though this application is highly subject to bias" there are zero search results outside of Wikipedia. Owu07 18:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The Google test would work well for a seminary or college in Ohio today. It would not work well for a seminary or college in Ohio in the 19th century that changed its name and/or folded into another institution. Samaritan 19:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah! One would think that if it were that important it would have been cited at least once somewhere on the web. RobOWU 20:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This long-winded nomination doesn't cite a single issue that deserves a VfD. All the problems cited can be solved by rearranging material, removing redundant paragraphs, calmly debating factual isssues, and resorting to the merge process. If there are personal issues, try to settle them privately, or request arbitration, instead of expecting the rest of the Wikipedia community to take sides. ---Isaac R 19:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - The history of a notable institution is clearly notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. --FCYTravis 19:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Google test shows that it is not notable at all. As an Ohio Wesleyan student, I've never heard that name before! RobOWU 20:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: For the record and on the "POV fork" argument, when the article was created there were the following articles created: Monnett Weekend, Orra E. Monnette Mary Monnett Bain Monnett Hall and Monnett Bain Davis. See the connection?? 3 of them have already been removed at various points in the VfD process. RobOWU 20:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep. There may be some issues with the article that need resolution, citation, and verification, but I don't think it's worth deleting at this point. EvilPhoenix

• Comment as mentioned above the "Google Test" is unreliable for historical institutions. IsaacR's advice is sound. Not a VfD candidate at this stage. Send to Votes for Editing (Oh wait, that's Wikipedia itself) Dystopos 21:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Former women's tertiary institution and as such worthy of retention. Capitalistroadster 00:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, google test is not a reason for deletion in cases like this. Kappa 00:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with user:RobOWU. An article about Ohio Wesleyan Female College already exists, so this one is redundant. Faria 02:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Content can be moved to Ohio Wesleyan Female College. LouisRivera 03:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It can't if you delete it! Do you mean to vote merge and redirect? RSpeer 06:22, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless it can be established that there was an institution with this name. "Isn't it entirely possible and believable" isn't good enough; it has to be proved. --Angr/_comhrá 05:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Mayathebee 06:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• I wish to vote against deletion, on the grounds that the article appears a reasonable starting-point for an accoutn of a "learning institution", and on the grounds that the original VfD argument does not cohere with what I find on the page as at today --Simon Cursitor 07:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN. I'm afraid VfD has changed since originally conceived. WikiVolution and all. Radiant_* 09:13, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm genuinely curious to know just what you mean by that last statement. --Unfocused 03:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sounds like it just needs editing. Also note that votes to "delete and move the content" are inconsistent with the GFDL. RSpeer 18:32, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Personal motives of the nominator aside, Delete as unverifiable and not notable, unless more resources can be provided. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 19:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC) Hmm, on further study of VfD arguments, I Abstain.
• Delete. I agree with RJrol 05:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The article starts with a factually incorrect comment: "The Ohio Women's Methodist Seminary, Delaware, Ohio, is now part of the Ohio Wesleyan University (Wesleyan)." I couldn't find "is now part" on the Wesleyan page anywhere. Jrol 05:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Non-encyclopedic. Gmaxwell 21:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Factually incorrect. Ianschmutte 18:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable. Jessicab 02:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Had a separate history before merger, so a separate article documenting this history is warranted. --Unfocused 03:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.--Heathcliff 04:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Thanks, and thank you for your Votes to Keep the Article

I've dropped back in for a moment and would like to thank all for voted to keep the article, as well as those who voted against it as an impartial act. I have kept out of this debate because I had become very disilluioned about Wikipedia and group of user. This vote has redeemed that faith.

I would like to thank those who have called others on their bad faith action against me and this article.

This matter could have been settled from the very beginning had certain Wikipedian's allowed primary, factual information held in the OWU archives to stand. They did not. I also suspect that a number of users whose only activity exists to manipulate the information regarding OWU have chimed in on this VFD; their trails can be viewed through their account history.

I also call to question any Wikipedian claiming to have attended OWU who has not heard of Mary Monnett Bain, Monnett Hall or the Ohio Womens Methodist Seminary. To think that they could have spent meaningful time on the OWU campus and have no historical background on the University seems very strange. To any uninvolved party who is a legitimate Wikipedian, not a shill or sock puppet, - this information may be verified through the Archives of Ohio United Methodism which are held at OWU.

Wikipedia should be about correct information, not something that is simply a validation of Google, or other web sites. Wikipedians who think that Google, Yahoo and other high level web sites are the only acceptible sources for information will undermine not only the sharing and growth of information, but will also doom Wikipedia to nothing greater than a parrot for web based knowledge. Stude62 16:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)