Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arya Kanya Girls Inter College, Hardoi


 * 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. There's a rough consensus to delete, even discounting SwisterTwister's comment which appears to be based on a misunderstanding. It's tempting to say we should give this the benefit of the doubt in an effort to fight systemic bias, but given that this doesn't even meet the requirements of WP:STUB, it doesn't seem worth saving. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Arya Kanya Girls Inter College, Hardoi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced article about an academic institution. One of many similar ones, none of which have significant hits on Google, by suspected former paid editor. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 21:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 21:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 21:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Firstly, it should be '"Arya Kanya Inter College" (Kanya is a Sanskrit word for Girl; both together doesn't make sense). Secondly, it seems like a chain of school run by the Arya Samaj in different parts of country - differentiated from one another only by the name of place they are situated at (few search results). These schools provide education up to intermediate level (12th standard).


 * I'm however not able to find any reliable source for this school in this particular district. All search results pop up "Arya Kanya Degree College" (degree = undergraduate;). Also, list of schools in Hardoi district published by the Government of Uttar Pradesh doesn't mention this particular intermediate college, but degree college . May be it is upgraded from intermediate to undergraduate college, and has its name changed ('inter' replaced by 'degree'). OR, it was always a Degree college and since it offers also +2 education, is sometimes called, inter college by local population. I'm inclined towards second speculative view. For notability: Inter College has zero hits, and Degree College meets Gng - . Anup   [Talk]  04:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as these specific schools are never notable or considered otherwise notable, because it's only a "medium" school. SwisterTwister   talk  05:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * When someone says a school is Hindi medium, it means the language for imparting education in the school is Hindi. It has nothing to do with anything else. Pratyush (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , Pratyush is correct. If this is the only basis for your !vote, you might want to change it.  DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Move to Arya Kanya Degree College. Google does not provide results for "Arya Kanya Inter College" (it's correct name) situated in Hardoi district, there are many colleges of this name but no reliable source provide result for the one situated in Hardoi. And as already mentioned by Anup, local people often call the college having Plus Two as Inter College. Since the Arya Kanya Degree College started as a high school, move looks like a better option. Pratyush (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As we don't know what information in this article is relevant to the other college (whether they're the same or not) it'd make more sense to delete this and create the other. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We've got nothing substantial to lose (1-sentence unreferenced stub with obvious wrong title). Starting afresh only seems reasonable and playing in safe hand. Adding to confusion, creator of this article also created Arya Kanya Degree College, Hardoi - which again we do not know if was an attempt to fix the page title or different institution (zero hits for an Indian school should not be very surprising). One will have to re-write the article from scratch anyway.  ping.  Anup   [Talk]  16:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not completely against the article's deletion. If the same person created Arya Kanya Degree College, Hardoi (I was unaware of it), then probably this Inter College is not the Degree College (assuming the creator created these in good faith). I am removing my vote for now. Pratyush (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep and rename to Arya Kanya Pathshala Inter College, Hardoi. I'm assuming it's actually this institution and not the degree college that we're talking about here. It's also listed on the website of the Uttar Pradesh Board of High School and Intermediate Education, p.13. It's a secondary school, so should be kept per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename - Source's have been found to verify the school exists which is the new consensus here, I could moan about Necrothesp's comment inregards to "longstanding precedent and consensus" but I shan't, Anyway keep. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I should point out that there's absolutely nothing "new" about the consensus. I've been here for years and it's been the consensus for as long as I can remember, despite editors periodically popping up and claiming it isn't and it hasn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well there is - Consensus used to be that you could say "Per SCHOOLOUTCOMES and it would be kept (I know because I used to do it plenty of times myself and would even close per that) ... now however simply saying that isn't enough and I think you know that otherwise you wouldn't of posted a source :), – Davey 2010 Talk 15:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have never cited SCHOOLOUTCOMES in that way (although I know some have). I have always used the form of words I've just used. And I can assure you that the consensus has existed for many years; in fact, since before anyone started citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES and before that redirect existed. I posted the sources to confirm (a) its name (since there was some confusion), (b) its existence, and (c) its status as a secondary school, which we have always required for a school to meet the consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - unsourced for four and a half years, and there's no indication from a search that the sources required to meet WP:GNG exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Coverage for Indian schools is next to none so there's alot of leniency when it comes to schools especially those in India, Ideally everyone woul prefer these to meet GNG however being realistic it wouldn't ever happen but that's no reason to get rid of it. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems to be how things often turn out in these discussions,, but my view is that if there aren't sources, we shouldn't have an article. Wikipedia is based on what reliable, published sources say about topics, after all. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So you choose to go against consensus? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, to express disagreement with it, yes. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. No information i the article to establish notability. And regarding the usual Schooloutcomes comments: that is just a summery created by a very loud group but no law carved in stone, policy or even a guideline. The Banner talk 18:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not loud, just in the majority, as you have consistently refused to understand as it goes against your own views. SCHOOLOUTCOMES merely documents the fact (which even you surely can't argue against) that almost every single secondary school AfD is closed as keep. The loud lot are actually the minority shouting that they're right against the clear wishes of the majority. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be nice when you finally come with arguments instead of a summery that should not be used as a policy. The Banner talk 13:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm you wilfully misread what I write. Did I mention using it as a policy? Or did I say it was a summary of a consensus? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL, it is the way you use it on WP yourself. Acting as if it is a policy carved in stone. The Banner talk 14:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you need to work out the difference between policy and consensus. A consensus can exist even if a policy doesn't. This is the case here however much you cry that you're right and the rest of us are wrong. However much you believe that, you know very well that the weight of consensus is with me and not with you. How many secondary school articles are deleted at AfD? Exactly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Seeing the number of schools nominated for deletion by different editors, your "consensus" is at least a shaky one. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * On the consensus point, while historically most secondary school AfDs have closed as keep, it's noticable how there has been an increase in the proportion of no consensus closes recently. Most recent is Articles for deletion/L.E.F. Eden Garden Matriculation School. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename: Necrothesp's comment is convincing, article should be moved to its correct name and kept. Pratyush (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment How about a "no-sources" PROD?  If the article does not have a source in seven days, it gets deleted, and can be undeleted on request.  AfDs such as this one could be avoided.  There would need to be an exemption for the possibility of articles that can be verified without sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sourced. I'm really sorry to sound like a dickhead but the time it took you to write that comment you could've added the source yourself? – Davey 2010 Talk 23:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a serious proposal. To repeat, "AfDs such as this one could be avoided."  One editor places the "No-sources-prod", and within seven days the article either goes away or somebody sources it.  If someone later doesn't like this, they can get the article restored.  If someone sources it, and it still goes to AfD, then "no sources" will not confound the discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoops sorry I thought you mean just for this article ...., In theory it sounds a great idea however not everyone has access to some of these sources and plus a good 98% of editors would never know this even existed so in the end we could potentially lose thousands if not millions of school articles, I do agree these AFDs are a waste of time but I'd rather these were brought here and sourced instead of having a prod added and subsequently deleted. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since there is no requirement for a WP article to be sourced, only to be sourceable, it would have to be Prod because unsourceable rather than unsourced, and that is often a matter of judgement and getting someone to work on it.The community needs to see them, to determine if they can be rescued, and AfD is the best way for that  DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:V is a core content policy that requires that articles be verifiable. Articles that have no sources must normally be completely re-written, and AfD is not cleanup.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Point is that they never be will rewritten when kept. So the argument "AfD is not cleanup" effectively falls through on that point. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A related proposal failed last August, see Village pump (policy)/Archive 129. Unscintillating (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, because it fails WP:GNG and not because of some highly controversial unwritten observation. I guess WP:consensus can change, if there was any to begin with, especially if explicit rules are developed by other consensuses which can render such an implicit consensus redundant... --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Essentially a WP:TNT at this point. I am finding it hard to verify whether this is indeed the same school. As there is only 1 sentence of content, I am opposed to changing this article/renaming it. I suggest to delete this and let someone create a new article with reliable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2016 (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.