Talk:Northpoint Bible College

message: This school is accredited per the article text and has a somewhat interesting history of competing with Brown over a radio frequency with some other religious groups.  I think at minimum there is enough notability to require a community discussion prior to deletion. This is why I removed the proposed deletion template. I could see the resolution to this article being a merge into the locality article with a redirect. Erechtheus 03:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing prod 

message: This article was becoming the scene of contention between contributors wanting to say that it is difficult to transfer credits from colleges without regional accreditation and others wanting to say that Zion Bible College students successfully transfer their credits. There were no WP:RS citations to support either position. I think the first point can be supported by citations, although weakly so. The second point was written in weasel words and is unlikely to be supported by WP:RS citations, although it probably is true. I think that neither set of statements is actually needed in the article, and without reliable sources they don't belong. Therefore, I deleted both.
I also edited the article lead and other sections somewhat extensively.
--Orlady 03:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The IPuser who is adamant about the above wording says "Paragraph 7 of citation: instead of using money to buy they will renovate with it." Paragraph 7 of http://www.eagletribune.com/punewshh/local_story_260115541 says "The money Zion Bible College anticipated using to buy the school property will instead be earmarked for renovating the shuttered college campus, Fiorentini said." It does not say where Zion expected to get the money; specifically, it does not say that the money Zion anticipated using was going to come from selling its current campus. Your independent knowledge of the situation is not a sufficient basis for an encyclopedia article. Until you provide a source for your information, I will continue reverting it. The statement I am reverting to is consistent with what you are saying; you are merely trying to add more detail. --Orlady (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My edits

message: An anonymous editor made a change to the History section and added an undocumented negative claim about George Cope's retirement as president.   Because Rev. Cole is a living person, the policy WP:LIVE applies: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.   I'm sorry for any inconvenience this causes.  If the editor can find published documentation about the matter in a reliable published source, it will be fine to add the information to this article again.   Chonak (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edit about George Cope 

message: The ZBC web site now appears to be entirely composed of Flash presentations.   This makes it difficult to identify a specify URL for references.   When adding references to the article, please try to find published reliable, independent sources. -- Chonak (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's annoying! I found a new PDF of the student handbook on the website, so I updated those references. The items sourced to the handbook are details of the college's rules and restrictions, which is the sort of topic for which the college's handbook is an excellent source. --Orlady (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  zbc.edu web site 

message: I shortened the material on the Catalyst program.  The talk about who started it and who's running it now -- a matter of interest only to people who know the individuals involved -- took up more space than the description of what the program is.   Furthermore, it's not clear that Catalyst even belongs in the "Academics" section of the article.  Is this the equivalent of a "cooperative education" program with industry placements?   If so, then it makes sense.   -- Chonak (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catalyst talk 

message: Dear fellow editors, thank you for your good-faith contributions to the article.
Some recent edits have added information, but it is hard to tell whether it follows Wikipedia's content policies (WP:LOP).  I'll summarize the points that might be relevant here:
* Wikipedia is not intended as a promotional tool ("not a soapbox": WP:SOAP).  
* Information in WP articles should be already published elsewhere ("no original research": WP:OR) 
* Information in WP articles should be preferably from sources published independently of the topic of the article ("reliable sources": WP:RS) -- not self-published, etc.
Some of the recent edit summaries state that the information being added is true.  However, the goal for Wikipedia is that information should be not only true, but verifiable, using published sources. Thank you for your understanding.  Bistropha (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please observe Wikipedia guidelines in editing