Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Baptist University

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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 18:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Louisiana Baptist University

This is a degree mill -- it is not accredited by the Association for Biblical Higher Education nor the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada. The page was created by a "graduate" of the school, Mr Jason Gastrich (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Gastrich) aka Big Lover (talk · contribs), who has a history of fibbing about his credentials ([1]). Jason also added whatlinksthere. Others people with "degrees" include the very shady Carl Baugh and some other random preachers of dubious importance.Dunc|☺ 10:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Louisiana Baptist University does not fit the category of a degree mill. They have an on-campus program and they have significant degree requirements that rival nationally accredited schools. Furthermore, Duncharris simply has an anti-fundamentalist agenda (not to mention anti-Gastrich agenda) which can be seen all throughout Wiki. See more of his personal attacks here.
  • This article should be kept. LBU is a quality university with a long history. Plus, it boasts a number of famous alumni. They include:
  • LBU holds BBFI approval. Among many non-degree mill, Christian schools, this is the standard. --Big Lover 20:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I have no idea what BBFI is, or if they are approved. But, please disregard everything you read at LBU's web site (which is the link you gave). It's all meaningless. As an example, they also say they're an ACSI member, but forget to say they aren't accredited (in other words they paid to be considered, and were rejected). I'm a little disturbed the good name of ACSI was dragged through the mud in this article. This is why private school (or institution) web sites, are never to be considered reliable sources of information (without verification). --Rob 16:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Anville 11:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and debunk/expand. Notable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Degree mills are numerous and of transient interest at best, and the vast majority can only be debunked by the absence of credentials (and Wikipedia is in a poor position to prove such things). Wikipedia isn't in the business of cataloging things that anyone with web site and a printer can set up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per A Man in Black. Durova 14:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per AMiB; excellent point. Sdedeo 19:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC) Strong Keep; per the anonymous contributor above, some somewhat notable kooks have been putting it on their resumés. Sdedeo 21:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC) I've done some NPOVing and added info on the accredation issues. It seems that LBU is probably not a straight up diploma mill, but it gets pretty close. Sdedeo 21:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a popular institution for a certain type of scholar. It's better to document what is verifiable about it, so that references to it in other articles can be supported. -Willmcw 22:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per A Man In Black. -- Kjkolb 00:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: notable diploma mill and the center of controversy. CDThieme 01:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Notable diploma mill? If this article stays in the encyclopedia then please list it under Category:oxymoron. Durova 16:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. We ought to be careful before accusing an institution of being a diploma mill, but should somebody be interested in a previous discussion regarding one, please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashwood University. Silensor 21:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even if (maybe even because) it's a diploma mill, it's still part of the landscape: the Christian right and their institutions represent a powerful force in modern American society. I'm personally aligned against the Christian Right, and the article helped me with a specific piece of research. I might wish that the school didn't exist, or was of a higher or different quality, but since it is as it is, I want the article there so I can learn from others who either know or think they know about it. Agree "Keep and debunk/expand. Notable." Alan Canon 23:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and edit for NPOV. The best way to counter misinformation is through information. - AdelaMae 00:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't believe I'm saying this, but we can weakly keep it as an example of a degree mill. Debunk, expand. Delete vanity references to non-notalbe Gastrich.Harvestdancer 05:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Amen, I mean keep. —RaD Man (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as example of diploma mill. This one will need to be handled carfully with regard to POV as per Harvestdancer David D. (Talk) 00:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, debunk, and expand, analogous to Ashwood University. MCB 07:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Write it neutrally, so that "diploma mill" or not, our readers know which educational associations condemn or endorse it. Uncle Ed 17:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - We are not investigative journalists out to debunk diploma mills (if this is one). Let real journalists do that, and publish their findings in respectable sources. Then, write an article that cites those sources. Also, the article relies heavily on a private school's web site, which it should not. The usenet "footnote" is entirely unacceptable "research". Without reliable verifiable sources, its very easy for us to misinform people, either slandering a legitimate organization, or promoting an illegitimate organization. Also, I'm not a fan of weasel words that involve talking about something, without saying it explicitly. NPOV shouldn't be obtained by "They say this, but others say that. In one way they're real, but in one way they're not". NPOV should be about citing authoritative sources on facts, and also citing notable published opinions on all sides. If there's a lack of these things, no valid article can ever be created. --Rob 17:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. POV or not, this meets notability standards.
  • Delete I am in agreement with Rob, since the notability of the institution is principally derived from the way in which it operates to legitimise its students with degrees, the value of which is highly debatable. How do you debunk an institution without engendering necessarily a POV viewpoint. The article should state up front that it is what is commonly known as a Diploma Mill (instead of just unaccredited), but that would lay the article open to NPOV complaints. It is unclear how a neutral rewrite can satisfy this fundamental tension. Better to just kill it. Also, is this a for-profit institution? Eusebeus 09:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • You're right. Should you nominate the creation and evolution articles for deletion or should I? —RaD Man (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
      • If you find half as many well noted published competing opinions on all sides, specifically about LBU, brining NPOV to this, I'll be totally in support of an article. Also, your examples are off-point. I support a diploma mill article (which is the closer analogy). I also, wouldn't support an article on Louisiana Institute of Creationism (or Louisiana Institute of Evolution), if it had the same problems Louisiana Baptist University has. Right now, this article rests largely on "sources" like UseNet. I'm not in principal opposed to any non-accredited institution ever getting an article. However, if there isn't what I feel, is a good basis for a verifiable NPOV article, then I am opposed. Note: accreditation isn't an end unto itself. Its simply one good form of verification. Other forms (like widespread news coverage, in noted publications) are also valid (but not present in this case). --Rob 10:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Better to know that it's a diploma mill than to not think that it exists at all. Significant contreversy is reason enough to keep, if only to help those wondering what the hell is going on. Karmafist 20:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please there are ten other sources other than usenet cited and it has at least six notable alumni erasing this would not make sense Yuckfoo 22:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
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.