Deletion of Texas Baptist College

Comment: Regarding your claim that it "has students", does it? Please provided  of how many students it has. If it has a lot that might establish notability. Your claim that basically everything should be kept (even though you may not read it) isn't a reason for inclusion, and in fact goes against wikipedia policy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: per lack of  from |reliable sources.  It appears the main sourcing being offered for keeping this is the vanity published book about the church which is not sufficient.  No clear case for notability has been made here and nobody has offered any sort of reliable sourcing for even the basic existance of this school
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: The SINGLE "book" (by a former member of the church) is about the CHURCH. The publisher of this 2006 book is PublishAmerica, which is a self-publishing company.http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25187-2005Jan20 According to that Washington Post article, "PublishAmerica does use POD technology -- saving manufacturing and warehousing costs by '''not producing a book until a consumer actually places an order'''." The church was not notable enough for wikipedia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longview Baptist Temple and was DELETED. The only source that is being cited to make it notable is self-published. Self-published sources are not allowed per . Hence the article should be deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Could we have a  independent from the "college" that there is a classroom? A student body? Regular staff? That this "college" is authorized to give degrees? I ask because Texas requires accreditation to award degrees.http://www.kvue.com/news/state/stories/120304ccjrkvuestateseminary.8f53085.html
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: per . People voting keep on any and every school are getting a bit tiring, and this is a good example of what is so annoying about that behaviour. If an article doesn't pass the standards set by our policies (and seems unable to do so even after researching it), it should go
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)