Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary (2nd nomination)

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 Delete. Most of the keeps just state "it's notable" on principle, without actually discussing the actual article and topic and the sources about this institute. The ones actually discussing sources were unable to provide reliable, independent sources of sufficient quality and significance, making the deletes not only stronger in numbers but also by strength of argument, which is the deciding factor in AfD discussions. Fram (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary[edit]

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

No secondary sources to demonstrate this unaccredited seminary meets WP:ORG. Specifically, it has zero non-trival sources to show "it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The article has created in 2008 by Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs), who has done 100% of writing this.

This was previously nominated after its creation Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary. Three editors, including its creator, wanted it kept arguing it is old and a "legitimate school" (no source to support that). No attempts have been made to prove notablity and add third-party, non-trival sources per WP:OR in three years. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing adminstrator. The creator of this article is not naïve, but has been told for years not to create articles about unnotable things. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn from 2008, which is a community response to his creating of unnotable articles or things that only have local interest. Then there are comments like this in 2007: "A number of your articles have been deleted for the policy violations. Yet, your editing behavior in those areas doesn't seem to have changed. Just today you have created several articles on non-notable individuals, some of which appear to be copied straight from the obituary section of a newspaper.... you'd been notified before about this issue of your creating articles for non-notable people...." HHaeyyn89 (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We keep colleges, we keep secondary schools, we should keep seminaries. Possible merge target might be L. L. Clover, the founder of the seminary. Carrite (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there are no sources about it? What policy are you citing? WP:ORG, which WP:SCHOOL says is the guideline, says third-party non trival sources are need to establish notablity. There are none. You can't have a good article without sources. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 05:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this article created the article about L. L. Clover and cited his own article (which is what the entire article is based on). This appears to be self-promotion. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failure to meet the general notability guideline by an absence of independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd like to point out the one book that is cited was published by 21st Century Press, a vanity publisher that requires authors pay to make the books, then pay to ship them to a warehouse, and pay a monthly storage fee for the books. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well established precedent is that we keep degree-awarding institutions which this seminary is. TerriersFan (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is does award degrees? What's your source? So any organization that claims to award degrees also gets kept even if you can't verify it?

Comment: Let's be clear about this: There is ONLY ONE NON-INDEPENDENT "SOURCE" THAT EVEN MENTIONS THIS SEMINARY. It's entire mention is: "In 1952, Calvary officially began the Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary." There is nothing about it awarding degrees, nothing about it currently operating. The only source for its current operation is the unsourced claim in the wikipedia article. The only claim that it offers degrees is in the wikipedia article, which is also unsourced.
The other sources, which are dead links now, claimed local pastors served at churches. Local pastorial activities aren't notable or even relevant to the article. The last source is a self-published autobiography of a dead local pastor. It fails WP:RS, but even it kept it sources this trival statement: "Not all were preparing for the pastoral ministry". The local news link says "so-and-so" attended, but doesn't say when, why or offer any other details.
Without sources, nothing claimed in the article can be proven false or true. Does this even exist or did exist? The whole thing is an advertisement for a place that can't be verified.
1) Please cite the "precedent" that unsourcable organizations get articles made about them. 2) Can you offer some reliable sources that this place is allowed to award degrees or does awards, or even currently has students? HHaeyyn89 (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument for deleting this seems to be centered on the claim it may not exist. I am not sure how to incorporate some sources I have found into the aritcle, however this obituary [1] clearly suggests the place existed, whether it now exists or not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

here [2] is a link to a blurb by Joe Morell who is said to have been dean of LMBIS.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what was added in was MORE links from LOCAL churches (plus an local obituary) and a business report. Is this local business notable for inclusion or will it remain an wiki ad without third-party sources? ~~ Abaamm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abaamm (talk • contribs) 16:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There seems to be confusion here. I nominated it with this reason: No secondary sources to demonstrate this unaccredited seminary meets WP:ORG. Specifically, it has zero non-trival sources to show "it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." I'm not speaking about the validity of its education. It doesn't appear to be notable outside of a few local churches that mention it. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep www.stampslandmark.com/pastor.htm is a reliable independent secondary third-party source and the coverage that is there is significant. Also, there is a reference at L. L. Clover that can be expected to have significant coverage, "Billy Hathorn, "Austin Toliver Powers and Leander Louis Clover: Planting the American Baptist Association in Northwest Louisiana during the Middle 20th Century," North Louisiana History, Vol. XLI (Summer-Fall 2010)." This school has had a significant impact on society and satisfies the definition of notability in WP:N, "worthy of notice". BTW, it appears that calvarybaptistminden.com/pages/aboutcalvary.html is not an independent source as two sources suggest that they own/operate the school. Unscintillating (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Per WP:LOCAL and WP:RS, that is not notable nor acceptable as a source. A local pastor's autobiography is not notable nor is it beyond trival. As WP:LOCAL says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Has this place been mentioned by people other than a few local pastors who attended it or the two local churches tied to it?
Secondly, Clover is also an unnotable pastor. The creator of this wikipedia article (Billy Hathorn) also created the Clover article and several local pastors from that area tied to this. And he is the author of the North Louisiana History article cited. Guess who created the North Louisiana History wikipedia article too? The same person.
It speaks volumes that there are no non-trival independent sources, other the creator of this wikipedia article who wrote the sole local history article about it and then created the wikipedia articles related to it. This is sheer vanity. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't verify through reliable sources. Literally, anyone can "create" a non-accredited institution of higher education in their garage by simply saying it is one, so the claim alone doesn't protect it as a college. A church that is cranking out paper that says "College Degree" isn't notable without independent sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Someone is sabotaging this article as I sought to add new information. Some of the material being questioned was put there by someone else. I just added updated sources on some of the LMBIS graduates, and it was quickly deleted. The school does offer degrees but does not seek secular accreditation. Some have even questioned if it exists at all, but there is a picture showing the new building, with the name engraved on it. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user created the article, but failed to mention that in this AFD and has been canvassing for people to vote keep. It doesn't help the article that John Doe of Anywhere USA says he went to the seminary and then you source John Doe's website. I mentioned this on the talk page here: Talk:Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary. Please do not add unnotable people to the article, it doesn't prove notablity. Please review WP:NOTE for any questions on why the articles you have created are nominated for deletions. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The saboteur may have stopped his attacks.

Meanwhile, there was an attempt a few weeks ago, maybe months now, to delete Sunset International Bible Institute in Lubbock, Texas. Fortunately, the article is still on Wikipedia but in need of more secondary sources. Just because some of the Wikipedia people don't think highly of these institutions, see them as less than fully academic, should not mean they are "non-notable."Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article, which you created, is up for deletion because it doesn't have secondary sources. As someone else explained to you about the articles you created, it has nothing to do with opinion. It has to do with sources. If you can't prove Notablity then there is no reason for an article about it. I looked at the Sunset International Bible Institute, which you created. It seems it was WP:PRODED, but held off with other users saying you must add secondary sources. Please demonstrate the notablity of these articles you created if you want them kept.HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. And strong delete for "well, we can't tell if the employees are in this organization or that organization, but we'll mention it anyway".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Sarek.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayewalker (talk • contribs)
Louisiana Secretary of State Record

http://coraweb.sos.louisiana.gov/commercialsearch/CommercialSearchDetails_Print.aspx?CharterID=11941

LOUISIANA MISSIONARY BAPTIST INSTITUTE AND SEMINARY

Type: Non-Profit Corporation

City: MINDEN

Status: Active

Registration Date:  10/25/1956

Last Report Filed:  10/13/2010

Comment The claim that the seminary awards doctorates is sourced to a local pastor's autobiography on his church's website, which only claims to he has the degree. Hardly a WP:RS to assert the seminary currently offers those degrees. How can we have an article about this place offering degrees without third-party sources that say it does? HHaeyyn89 (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put a {{fact}} tag in and wait for an editor to provide the sources? -- Avanu (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find with the non-profit corp registration, Avanu, now let's see if the editor that previously said, "nothing claimed in the article can be proven false or true. Does this even exist or did exist? The whole thing is an advertisement for a place that can't be verified", will now say, "nice find Avanu, I was wrong, what I said was unreasonable." Unscintillating (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in fairness to HHaeyyn89, we must find reliable sources for Wikipedia. However, there is a choice between deletion or finding sources. AfD is sort of like challenging the article to prove itself, and if no one comes forward to help it do that, then it goes away. Its not unreasonable to demand sources, but it is also fine to just use the {{fact}} for a time to prompt people. -- Avanu (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Evidacen of existance is not evidance of notability. There seems to be a lot of sources but none that go any way (as far as I can see) to establish notability. However is there a ruleing on churches and what is it?Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of sources, and from what I can see on the web it is non-notable. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike churches, seminaries are generally notable. I think we have enough sources here to demonstrate that this is no exception. St Anselm (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We don't obsess about finding "reliable sources" about high schools. This is a degree-granting institution, a higher level of education, if you will. We should not worry about whether this publication or that publication has written a feature story about them — if they are a verifiable, real life institution (and this one is), then they should be in. We waste far too much time parsing these things. Anybody that has spent more than five minutes at New Pages taking a look at the ceaseless waves of crap rolling in should realize that this page is in the top 10 percentile of Wikipedia articles. Hey, I'm an atheist and I've got no dog in this fight. We should be building the best encyclopedia possible. Nitpicking small seminaries for "reliable sources" isn't the way to do it. This is a degree-granting institution, we've got a nice history, let it stand. Carrite (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand your point, but it's not even an accredited institution. It grants degrees that are only recognized by a small segment of the population, and according to the article, doesn't even seek to have its degrees recognized outside of the church. Dayewalker (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, We do obsess. Even ACCREDITED institutions can be subject to AFD. Unaccredited institutions have always been held to the standard of having to prove notability. You can open up an unaccredited college in your basement by simply saying it is one, thus the declaration itself doesn't carry notability by itself, which is why we require independent verification and sourcing. Additionally, the standard for notability is not any lower for an unaccredited institution just because it is affiliated with a church or religion of any kind. This isn't new here. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'd like to point out that the sources that claim this place offers degrees contradict one another. One says it awards just bachelor's and another says graduate degrees. I tried pointing this out on the talk, but the creator of the article has removed the tags several times to add his own article. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Notability from works created by the group itself should not be considered.Naraht (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the scope of "significant coverage" change based on how broadly an article's subject is spread? In other words, something like this Seminary might be significant in Minden, Louisiana, or even parts of Louisiana, but not in the whole state, or not in the whole world. So wouldn't we need to adjust the setting on "significant" to relate somewhat to the subject?

Minden, Louisiana is a town of about thirteen thousand people. Just being notable in that town or area isn't enough to be notable for a general encyclopedia with some reliable sources showing its significance elsewhere. Dayewalker (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if that is the case, then we could/would probably just merge all or part of this content into the Minden, Louisiana article. -- Avanu (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2011 (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.