Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Baptist University (2nd nomination)
Before determining a vote (call it what you will, we all know it's a vote), I compared '''''Louisiana Baptist University|LBU''''' to another unaccredited institution, '''''West Coast Baptist College|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 "ther Stuff Exists|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
— User:VigilancePrime, 03:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:O (Wikipedia:Orphan)