Talk:Alphacrucis

message: :Image:SCC-Websitevz 01.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:SCC-Websitevz 01.gif

message: This insitution's claimed:
*Auckland address appears to be a small back property (and probable house) on a residential street. It is also given as the address for a 'church' a 'commission', an 'institute' and a charity.
*The Sydney address appears to be a multi-tenant office block (main tenant being the Red Cross).
*The Brisbane address is that of a suburban church.
They no longer own the 'Chester Hill Campus' pictured in the article.
I am beginning to wonder whether this continues to be a substantive institution, let alone a notable one. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be a bona fide non self-accrediting higher education institution in Australia. There are an increasing number of those, it is true, but Alphacrucis is notable as the main institution training AOG clergy, and the quality (or lack there of) of its courses is of considerable interest to Australian readers in that regard. Yes, the NSW campus seems to be located in an office block in Sydney. -- 202.124.74.224 (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: On the 2nd floor, I believe. -- 202.124.75.136 (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A single floor of a single office block is hardly a substantial educational institution. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:ORG which lays out Wikipedia's real notability requirements. Floor area is not one of them. -- 202.124.73.174 (talk)`  —Preceding undated comment added 09:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please have a WP:TROUT and get a clue! Educational institutions, by their very nature, require more floor space than other organisations. Lack of floorspace creates a very real constraint on its ability to teach. As such, it is perfectly reasonable to question how substantive it is. Have you quite finished making silly comment in a vain attempt to score points? If not, then you have my heartfelt permission to go be silly somewhere else. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:CIVIL and, preferably, avoid articles where you don't understand the basic issues. Floor area has no impact on notability. Nor is it a measure of size (EFTSL is). It has an impact on quality of education, which is exactly why there is so much public discussion in Australia on institutions like this. -- 202.124.73.174 (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

text: The Brisbane address is also legitimate, according to the Queensland government. -- 202.124.75.136 (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As to notability, its role in Australian AOG history is more than sufficient. -- 202.124.75.136 (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:ORG which lays out Wikipedia's real notability requirements. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious bricks-n-mortar claims 

message: What is the legal status of Alphacrucis? It's listed on TEQSA and is authorised to run non-degree courses, but which degrees is it authorised to award? What accreditation arrangements is it under? Presumably it's a non self-accrediting higher education institution? -- 202.124.74.224 (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that it's authorised to award some specific degrees in the state of Queensland and in NSW and apparently some other courses elsewhere in the country, but most courses seem to be vocational education and training. -- 202.124.74.224 (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworded the lede to clarify this. -- 202.124.75.136 (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal status 

message: Primary sources (mostly government education department listings):
*Organisation details (Australian Government)
*TEQSA web site
*Australian Government "Study in Australia" web site
*New South Wales Government education web site
*Votes and Proceedings, New South Wales Legislative Assembly, 29 March 2012.
*ANZTLA EJournal, No. 2, (2009)
Affiliated sources:
*Degrees and certificates (Alphacrucis)
*a b c d e Our History (Alphacrucis)
*Principal Stephen Fogarty on the rationale behind the college's new name
*Faculty and staff (Alphacrucis)
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are not primary sources. -- 202.124.73.174 (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The first six are. The second four are affiliated sources -- also mentioned by the template that you keep removing without good reason. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The first six are not. -- 202.124.73.174 (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:PRIMARY, they are the relevant state governments' statement of their decision to extend recognition to Alphacrucis, and thus clearly primary sources. And to be perfectly blunt, I have little interest in hearing further reflexive contradiction with no basis in policy from yourself. You are quite simply wasting my time! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the  relevant state governments' statement of their decision to extend recognition to Alphacrucis reflects, under Australian law, an assessment by government bureaucrats of course materials (which are primary sources), the resulting decision is a secondary source. The ANZTLA EJournal is also a secondary source. The status of parliamentary Votes and Proceedings is less clear, but certainly speaks to notability. And you are free to disengage from this article if you wish. -- 202.124.74.2 (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Tendentious argumentation not supported by either policy or practice. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, it is based on WP:PRIMARY and observed practice in other articles. And once again, WP:AGF. -- 202.124.75.46 (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary and affiliated sources