Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 04:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Unnotable, non-accredited institute. Fails WP:ORG. No WP:RS about this organization. "Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute" in google news archive has one hit; an article asking for contributions (from bossierpress.com - Jan 4, 2007). "Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute" in google turns up only 207 hits, which also don't pass WP:V and WP:RS. It's most notable graduate is Jimmy G. Tharpe whose article is up for AFD here. As such, this is mere promotion for a non-accredited educational place seeking donations. No RS for an article/notablity. Tgreach (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Unaccredited is irrelevant. All genuine established colleges are notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. Additionally, many conservative religious institutions deliberately remain unaccredited to minimize outside involvement and possible control of their programs,and this is not necessarily a sign of low quality. Even when it is, it is just as important to cover them. DGG (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a RS that it is genuine or not? You can't have a NPOV article without third-party sources. It is not notable. You seem more focused on the accreditation issue than the lack of sources. If it were accredited, I'd say its an automatic keep since you'd have third-party sourcing. That's why I said it wasn't accredited; not an automatic keep. Nor did I imply it is a diploma mill, if could be or could not; we have no sources either way. Tgreach (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The school is 57 years old. It started with two pastoral students in a minister's home. It is not a diploma mill. It is in a new building. It does not seek accreditation from a secular agency. Degrees from the school are intended for use within the denomination.Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ORG says "a company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." What "significant coverage in secondary sources" are there? Tgreach (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not a reflection of its existence or its worthiness, but of its failure to attain significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Many traffic schools have more notability that this - and anything can call itself an institute or seminary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.