Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Baptist University (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 No consensus defaulting to keep. Tyrenius (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Baptist University[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Louisiana Baptist University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Louisiana Baptist is an unaccredited college that some people consider to be a diploma mill. This article was originally created by a Jason Gastrich sock. When you google and take out Wikipedia and Jason Gastrich, it gets an astonishingly small number of g-hits - 1050. In 2+ years, nobody has found any independent sources of information about it. It exists and has a physical building, but that's about all we can say about it. Considering that the campus page on their website talks glowingly about the surrounding community, and not at all about the campus, I'm assuming this one building we see is it.

The fundamental notability criterion is that there needs to be external sources of information about a subject. No such sources are available and thus the article should be deleted. B (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not a notable college in any way, no reliable sources can be found to verify even that the college exists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Diploma mills are notable, if for no reason other than warning people. Keep and expand. Mykej (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Diploma mills, like everything else, have to be notable; and it's notability as a diploma mill hasn't been established either. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the college exists and it notable there must be a legit strong source besides for the peope claiming to have attended it. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Expansion doesn't seem to be possible as there aren't any reliable external sources of information. It isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to warn people about diploma mills. Chaz Beckett 02:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tavix (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A university established in 1973 has Inherent notability, like a town. We don't require towns to have third party coverage, just that they exist. The primary sources establish most of the information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the dearth of sources here, this is a fairly good example of why "All X are notable." rules are wrongheaded, and why your idea of "inherent notability" failed. Notability is not a blanket. "All X are notable." is always an attempt at a short-cut around actually finding and evaluating what sources exist for an article, and is always wrong. Please actually do the work of finding and evaluating sources. Uncle G (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The trouble is it's not a university by any reasonable definition of the wordm so there is no "inherent notability". Neıl ☎ 01:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Above and beyond the long-established inherent notability for such schools are dozens of reliable and verifiable sources which clearly satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. I've seen plenty of BS excuses for nominations, but there isn't a single valid justification provided by the nominator that would require deletion under Wikipedia policy, nor have any of our delete votes added any; I don't give a crap who created the article, I don't care about its building, the number of Google hits is meaningless, nor do I care that its an unaccredited diploma mill. If anything, we want to keep article for diploma mills so that anyone checking it can get this information. This school has been the regular subject of media coverage and has been previously judged to have no justification for deletion. The Wikipedia:Notability standard could not be more clearly met. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Media coverage? Where? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Read the article. Someone has been abusively gutting the article, so you may have to check earlier versions. One would also assume that the governmental sources referring to the school are also present as non-primary sources. Alansohn (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • One would not. Please provide sources rather than asserting they exist. Neıl ☎ 01:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the benefit of those who refuse to read the sources:
1. ^ http://www.lbu.edu/macacademic.html
2. ^ a b c d "Academics and Vision", Louisiana Baptist University, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-08-18.
3. ^ "Institutional Accreditation System", United States Department of Education, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-04-11.
4. ^ "List of unrecognized accreditors", Credential Watch, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-08-18.
5. ^ Steve Levicoff. Name It and Frame It?. (3rd edition) Institute on Religion and Law. 1993 (pages 113 and 133
6. ^ "Domain check for the .edu", EduCause.edu, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-05-11.
7. ^ "Eligibility for the .edu Domain FAQ", EduCause.edu, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-05-11.
8. ^ Life Credits and Diploma Mills United States Department of Education
9. ^ Learn the Bible in 24 hours by Chuck Missler
10. ^ Dan Wooding.Learn the Bible in 24 Hours: Chuck Missler releases an extraordinary teaching tool ASSIST News Service. Garden Grove, CA April 3, 2001
11. ^ Koinonia Institute degrees
12. ^ a b "Welcome to LBU!", Louisiana Baptist University (Archived), April 1999. Retrieved on 2007-03-07.
13. ^ "Unlicensed 'colleges' worry state officials: Legislation being prepared to tighten rules for nonprofit schools", The Advocate (Baton Rouge), November 22, 1998. "The Louisiana Baptist University in Shreveport plans to offer a business administration degree. The university doesn't think Regents approval is necessary."
14. ^ "Minutes of Board of Regents December 10, 1998", Louisiana Board of Regents, December 10, 1998. Retrieved on 2007-03-13. Orders LBU to stop admitting students.
15. ^ "Minutes of Board of Regents April 22, 1999", Louisiana Board of Regents, April 22, 1999. Retrieved on 2007-03-13.
16. ^ United States of America, State of Louisiana, Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco Proclamation Signed March 29, 2005.
17. ^ Louisiana Baptist University faculty and staff page
18. ^ "Dissertation Requirements (page 20)", Louisiana Baptist University, 2007-2008. Retrieved on 2006-08-18.
19. ^ "Library of Congress and Copyright Office Sign Landmark Agreement with UMI", Library of Congress, 2007-2008. Retrieved on 2007-08-18.
20. ^ William P. Welty's dissertation on SWANsat for the Ph.D. in communications (2005) signed off by Chuck Missler. LBU has no communications school or prior history of telecommunications research; no published peer-reviewed publications are related to this document, despite peer-reviewed publication being a significant part of Ph.D. research.
21. ^ Tobia, P.J. "Reading, Writing and Jesus: What nearby schools don’t know about the Bible class they soon may be teaching", Nashville Scene, October 19, 2006. Accessed December 19, 2007. "While there are a few reputable legal and theological minds from solid universities associated with the group, they are far outnumbered by the likes of Carl Baugh, who holds a Ph.D. in theology from Louisiana Baptist University, an unaccredited online school."
22. ^ Perkes, Kim Sue Lia. "Fort Worth school sues to call itself "seminary'", Austin American-Statesman, April 15, 1999. "Tyndale has about 350 seminary students, about two-thirds of them taking courses by correspondence, said Mal Couch, the school's president and founder. He said he holds five degrees, including a doctorate of theology from Louisiana Baptist Seminary..."
23. ^ Murray, Shailagh. "Filibuster Fray Lifts Profile of Minister: Scarborough Has Network and Allies", The Washington Post, May 8, 2005. Accessed December 19, 2007. "After receiving a master's of divinity from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth and a doctorate in ministry from Louisiana Baptist Theological Seminary, Scarborough hit the national revival and crusade circuit for 14 years."
24. ^ Rick Scarborough Vision America
25. ^ Wilson, Jennifer. "Is Noah's Ark on mount in Iran? Man scours the world looking for religious artifacts", Deseret Morning News, August 11, 2006. Accessed December 19, 2007. "Bob Cornuke doesn't have a degree in archaeology; he holds a doctorate in Bible and theology from Louisiana Baptist University."
26. ^ Arellano. "Dr. Jihad", OC Weekly, March 2, 2006. Accessed December 19, 2007. "Morey also claims to have received a doctorate from Louisiana Baptist University. Two problems: LBU is unaccredited by the United States government, which means no serious academy would recognize it. Then there’s this: LBU doesn’t offer a Ph.D. in Islamic studies."
27. ^ Guest preacher at revival by Rhonda Morrow, Texarkana Gazette, 12/8/2007
28. ^ Commentary: Integrity biggest loss in baseball scandal by Roland S. Martin (12-19-2007) Retrieved 12/19/2007
29. ^ Commentary: You can't take Christ out of Christmas by Roland S. Martin (12-19-2007)
Tough to just call this "asserting they exist". Alansohn (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It has the name 'university', and it's not a hoax. Where I come from, that would make it notable by default.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Whether this is a legitimate religious school with very low standards or a diploma mill (the various sources suggest that it has been some of both over the years), the fact that has gotten a lot of negative media attention but has managed to stay afloat for 34 years indicates to me that it is a notable topic for an encyclopedia article. Like many AfDs for diploma mills and unaccredited religious schools, this nomination seems to have a large component of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't like it either, but I (like Alansohn) want Wikipedia to have articles about outfits like this one so that people checking into these outfits can get solid information. Additionally, I'm getting tired of having articles that I have worked on get nominated for deletion on the ad hominem grounds that Jason Gastrich once worked on those articles. The fact that he is interested in a topic does not automatically make the topic nonnotable. --Orlady (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is ironic that you suggest nominating the article for deletion is based on ad hominem grounds - that statement is, in itself, ad hominem. Neıl ☎ 01:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone who says this thing has been getting media attention point to a few sources? Other than having an article about someone and mentioning that he received his degree from there, I haven't seen anything. --B (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can always check out "Unlicensed 'colleges' worry state officials: Legislation being prepared to tighten rules for nonprofit schools", The Advocate (Baton Rouge), November 22, 1998. Accessed December 19, 2007. "The Louisiana Baptist University in Shreveport plans to offer a business administration degree. The university doesn't think Regents approval is necessary.", which is followed by a series of reports from the Louisiana Board of regents on its decision to bar the degree program, and its later about face. All of which seem to be reliable and verifiable independent source. You can take a look at Google News Archive, which has many more sources available to be added to the article. Alansohn (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WP:NOTABILITY, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Also from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. After reading each of the 30 footnotes in this article I count the following:
    • Seven citations of the university's own website.
    • A link to the US Department of Education's website where LBU does not get even trivial mention (it's unaccredited so a site search returns no data).
    • Passing mention at "Credential Watch", a Stephen Barrett page.
    • Two citations of passing mention in Name It and Frame It?.
    • Two links to whois.educase.edu, which would constitute trivial mention even if it weren't original research.
    • A U.S. Department of Education statement on diploma mills in general. No specific mention of LBU.
    • A link to a book sale at Amazon.com. One sentence mention of LBU in the book description.
    • A book review by ASSIST News Service with a one sentence mention of LBU deep in the article.
    • A credit transfer statement at the Koinonia Institute website, another unaccredited institution.
    • A two sentence mention in the Baton Rouge paper The Advocate about LBU's plans to offer an unaccredited degree.
    • A link to meeting minutes of the Louisiana Board of Regents that contains a one sentence statement denying accreditation to LBU.
    • A link to different meeting minutes of the Louisiana Board of Regents that contains a one sentence statement granting a religious exemption to LBU.
    • A certificate of proclamation (one page) by the governor of Louisiana.
    • A Library of Congress announcement that contains no mention of LBU.
    • A doctoral dissertation on telecommunications by William P. Welty written in pursuit of a degree at LBU.
    • An article in Nashville Scene about Bible study in public schools. One sentence passing mention of LBU near the end of the article.
    • A cite of an Austin-American Statesman article that contains a one sentence passing mention of LBU.
    • A cite of a Washington Post article that contains a one sentence passing mention of LBU.
    • A link to a speaker profile at the Vision America website that contains passing mention of an LBU degree in the bio.
    • An article in the Deseret Morning News that contains a one sentence passing mention of LBU.
    • An article in OC Weekly about an individual's dubious claim to a university degree. This time LBU gets three sentences: Morey also claims to have received a doctorate from Louisiana Baptist University. Two problems: LBU is unaccredited by the United States government, which means no serious academy would recognize it. Then there’s this: LBU doesn’t offer a Ph.D. in Islamic studies.
    • An commentary about baseball at the CNN website. No mention of LBU in the article itself, just a passing mention about LBU in the commentator's bio line.
  • Among all these citations I find only one that does not constitute trivial or incidental coverage: the governor's proclamation. Unfortunately the article cites the proclamation itself rather than any relevant news coverage. In pursuit of this lead I ran a Google search on Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Louisiana Baptist University and the only returns that related to this proclamation were Wikipedia and its mirrors. From this I conclude that the proclamation (which was a framable certificate rather than a press release) was nothing more than a private courtesy and it would constitute a violation of the no original research policy to construe notability from this. All attempts to establish notability for Louisiana Baptist University either constitute original research or attempt to fabricate notability from any passing mention whatsoever. The rare manstream publications that notice this institution's existence at all do so only in order to affirm its insignificance. Delete. DurovaCharge! 09:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's some more information on sources.

    Google Scholar: The only mentions of this subject anywhere at all are where people are putting its name next to their academic credentials. A sum total of zero information for writing an article.

    Google Books: There are about a page and a half of people, again, putting this name next to their academic credentials. The remainder are occurrences in directories. ISBN 1580084427, for example, just lists the name of the place in appendix C, which is a big list of the names of colleges that will accept homeschooled and GED students. And the titles of University and College Phone Book, 2005 and College Web Address Directory tell one what one will obtain from them on this subject, and what that will garner as an encyclopaedia article.

    Google News Archive: Alansohn claims that there are many more sources here. There are not. 28 of the 35 results are, once again, people simply saying that they have, or are working towards, a degree from this place, with no actual information about the place at all. 4 others are mentions that John Ashcroft once went there to receive an honorary degree, simply mentioning it in a long list of stops on a tour of the U.S.. 1 contains exactly 4 words about the subject, "Louisiana Baptist University, an unaccredited online school", because what it is actually about is the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. 1 is discussing Baptist Christian College and merely says in passing that it is separate from this subject. The final 1 is the one that Alansohn picked as an example. A sum total of exactly one source that even contains a whole sentence about this subject.

    Uncle G (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning toward keep. The short reason... seems boarder line on the [WP:N|notability]] but it also seems that people will see the school in peoples resumes and such and should be able to find some information here on it. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Sure, it's utterly nonnotable and unworthy of being in an encyclopedia, but then so are 95% of the articles in Category:Schools. Unfortunately, nonnotability and unencyclopedicity stopped being de-facto reasons to delete articles from Wikipedia a couple of years ago. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 16:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That custom doesn't apply to unaccredited institutions. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barcelona Business School. DurovaCharge! 18:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barcelona Business School is singularly uninformative and does not appear to be particularly relevant. (The AfD does not mention accreditation or lack thereof. All AfD participants supported deletion, for reasons encapsulated as "Non-notable organization lacking independent sources of information and article was created by owner.") In contrast, in the case of LBU, several Wikipedians support keeping the article -- largely because of the perception that LBU is a scam that calls itself a university. IMO, saying that the LBU article should be deleted because it is not notable as a university but has not been closed down as a diploma mill is like saying that John Sebastian Larocca should not have an article because he was just a nonnotable coal miner (and small-time felon) and was never convicted for being a Mafia boss. --Orlady (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is this the best example? He seems to be a lot more notable than this "University". David D. (Talk) 19:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • John Sebastian Laroca ran a major crime organization. From the handful of credible reports that exist, this is simply a diploma mill. It has never achieved accreditation. Somehow it survived for over three decades, yet it achieved nothing notable, not even a scandal. WP:NOR and WP:NOTABILITY make no provision for the durability of a non-notable institution. Local organizations may exist for 50 years, 100 years, or more without ever attracting enough attention to merit an article. The attempts to establish notability for this organization are clearwater original research. DurovaCharge! 20:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete woefully fails the original research test. May reconsider if someone can edit this down to an article that does not fail OR and still remains notable. I'm not sure that is possible reading the posts above. David D. (Talk) 16:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Does anybody have access to Lexis? Google news searches will only indicate recent press coverage. LexisNexis will show whether the subject ever had notability, and provide good reliable source material if it did. I think this Afd is premature, we should revisit. The article was under reconstruction at the time of this second Afd. Ra2007 (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT My understanding is that notability does not go away. Consequently, to do this (and other) articles right, Lexis should be consulted to see, more authoritatively than google or web archive services, if LBU is in fact (or ever was) notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ra2007 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unnotable diploma mill and per the typically well-informed comments by Uncle G. Strong Delete based on the risibly unimportant "sources" adduced by Alansohn to "demonstrate" notability. Brava! Eusebeus (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A strong delete on a school article from someone who has concocted a risibly worthless screed declaring that no school on earth is notable, is truly worth a hearty chuckle. Another pointless effort to try to make a WP:POINT. Alansohn (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please keep the comments focused on content, not editors. Chaz Beckett 23:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I note that those claiming this university slash diploma mill is notable are utterly unable to provide any evidence to back this up. Empty claims of notability are just that - empty. The references within the article are garbage, as Durova lists above - many don't even mentione "Louisiana Baptist University", and the rest only mention the name in passing (such as those which mention "X, who holds a degree from Lousiana Baptist University"). I don't think anyone actually believes the place is a real university, and so it has no inherent notability - the article must be assessed on its merits. As it has none, then it needs to be deleted. Neıl ☎ 00:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have consistently treated as notable any institution of higher education, accredited or unaccredited, as long as it has a real existence. Awarding degrees is real existence. One of the reasons for this is the importance of providing information about this class of institution. We serve as a filter on the web, as Jimbo said in slightly different words back at the start, and abstracting the information here for relative obscure but important topics is one of the things we do best. If if one wants individual demonstration of notability, while most of those "references" are indeed no proof of notability, but just document statements in the article, the newspaper articles are sufficient. In context, so is [1] Such a proclamation for such an institution is notability. The article could use some editing. The explanation of why it is not respectable is considerably over-emphasised beyond necessity. DGG (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that the proclamation confers notability, short of a reliable secondary source that claims otherwise (and not a claim by a wikipedian that "my dog got a Fido day proclamation in Idaho once"). Ra2007 (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG's excellent reasoning. For similar reasons, we'd want to keep an article on a vanity press that might otherwise be marginally notable -- so that when we see their imprint on a source, we know how reliable of a source it is that we're dealing with. Likewise, we can take any source claiming expertise based on a person's education at this august institution with the requisite grain of salt. -- Kendrick7talk 19:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. Odd nature (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above.--Filll (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reality may be a bitch, but so is life -- even a fantastic life buried in denial and scientia superstitioni. •Jim62sch• 01:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Geez, this again? This University is notable in every respect of the word. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep a well written article with multiple reliable sources backing it up. Miles Naismith (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as DGG shows, the university is notable in WP terms. . .. dave souza, talk 14:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notability and sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it has neither actual notability nor actual sources, that's a rather strange reason. --Calton | Talk 10:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for obvious lack of notability and lack of actual sources. --Calton | Talk 10:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is hard to argue with the proclamation as a basis for notability. Couple this with a long list of notable alumni and at least some independent sources then WP:N is met. TerriersFan (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Before determining a vote (call it what you will, we all know it's a vote), I compared LBU to another unaccredited institution, WCBC. Though they are dissimilar in many ways (WCBC has no online program noted on their page), they do have many similarities that I feel bear comparison. LBU shows more than 1000 students and 44 staff, whereas WCBC shows 700 students and 32 staff (meaning LBU is larger in institution size and body size). Both schools are unaccredited and both use essentially the same logic to justify themselves as being unaccredited. Both have multiple sections, and while LBU's sections are larger, WCBC's are better organized. WCBC has only six references, and three of those are the WCBC website, while LBU has a somewhat overwhelming 29 references (as shown above). While I agree that many of the references in LBU are minimal, in reading (assuming that they do back up the statements on which they are used, I was not doing verifications) I see that the page is appropriately referenced as narrow comments have references that would only require a passing reference to use as a source. As for notability, perhaps the university's physical size (buildings, acreage, etc.) is not as large as the college's, but the overall notability seems to be very similar. NOW, I KNOW That This Seems to rely on an "Other Stuff Exists" paradigm, and I am not meaning to assert that "because WCBC has a page LBU must also have a page", but I think the comparison is at least relevant and can give insight in the matter. This is in no way a "keep both or delete both", but a comparison of the notabilities of two similar organizations. I think that LBU's article's problem is not so much lack of notability as it is massive need of clean-up and reorganizing/formatting (grouping accredidation and controversy in the same section is probably a poor format choice, especially in the first section). Thusly, while I agree with many of the delete voters' points, I believe that those have the ability to be (slowly?) remedied and the article is "worthy" of remaining on Wikipedia. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC) BTW: Please forgive my use of narrative logic instead of listing an incessant littany of acronyms![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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Louisiana_Baptist_University_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1142612470"