Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Baptist Theological Seminary

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Baptist Theological Seminary[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

written like an advertisement Eeekster (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks notability because it lacks reliable third party sources. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not up to snuff, but the subject squeaks over the line to meet WP:GNG. Several books discuss the institution, e.g, this one published in 2008 by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, a brief mention in this 2006 Rowman & Littlefield historical dictionary, this 1887 Toronto Daily Mail article, this Baptist Encyclopedia coverage. It is also covered as Karen Theological Seminary, Karen Seminary, and Karen Baptist Seminary. There seem to be others, too. Novaseminary (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have since removed the advertisement-like text (which seems to have been copied off of the school's website). This essentially stubified the article. I also added the 2008 source to the article. Novaseminary (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references clearly demonstrate notability. St Anselm (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sourcing and improvement by Novaseminary.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2010 (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.