Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harkamaya College of Education


 * 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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Harkamaya College of Education

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article on a for-profit college, sourced entirely to the company's self-published report. I could find no significant, independent coverage and certainly nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Deprodded because "deletion of articles on accredited degree-level colleges is far from uncontroversial", but accreditation does not equal notability. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Maybe I have missed something, but I can find no evidence that this is a "for-profit" college. And, as far as I am aware, no officially accredited degree-awarding college has ever been deleted at AfD. Is there something about this one that means that it should be the first? Or should we apply the same standards to colleges in India that we do to colleges in the anglophone West? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The standard is the same whatever the organisation and wherever it's located: significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I have made a good faith attempt to find it for this college, and found none. This isn't a major centre of higher education, it's a small, privately-owned teacher training college. I don't know about you but I have absolutely no idea what it takes to get a "B grade NAAC accreditation" so I don't think it's a good idea to presume that it's an indicator of notability. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep "In 2006, the college became the first institution in the state of Sikkim to offer the Master of Education degree". At worst it would be merged to the parent university. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought about that, but it only says it's "affiliated to", not part, of Sikkim University (which itself is a very minor regional university). The Sikkim website only gives it the barest mention, as one of fourteen (!) affiliated colleges . –&#8239;Joe (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a officially accredited degree-awarding college affiliated to the Sikkim University which is a Central University and the degree is recognised by the University Grants Commission (India) .I have added some references to the article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You added a primary government document that just includes Harkamaya in a table; a book that mentions it once in a directory of colleges (and doesn't verify the statement it is attached to); and, most bafflingly, to support the statement "the college was founded in 2003, and was initially affiliated to North Bengal University in West Bengal," you added a reference that mentions neither Harkamaya nor North Bengal University, and was published ten years before the college even opened! What on earth were you trying to achieve with that? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Çomment :It was founded in 2003 and it was originally affiliated to the North Bengal University in West Bengal after the Sikkim University was founded in 2006 it got affiliated to the Sikkim University .Sorry I wrongly added a wrong link which I wished to add to another page thanks for pointing it out.It is recognised degree issuing college as per Sikkim Government site mentions it and this book states It was founded in 2003 and is affiliated to Sikkim University and the NAAC as per this gives it a rating of B+ it is not a run a mill private college. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of those facts are disputed. But being affiliated to a notable university or accredited by a notable body does not make this college notable. Where is the significant coverage in independent reliable sources? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete -- as a for-profit institution it needs to meet WP:NCORP. No sources have been presented to this effect by the Keep voters, and my searches do not bring up anything suitable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I see no reason to suppose that this is a for-profit institution. A large percentage of the world's universities and colleges teaching to degree level are private but not for-profit, for example all of the Ivy League universities, and I see no evidence that this is any different. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. Being private is utterly and completely irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Without reputable third-party material sources other than the institutions' own marketing materials, and without some self-inherent claim to notability, simply existing and being a college does not meet notability requirements, which a lot of people seem to utterly fail to understand here. Or do I seriously need to quote WP:ORGIN, WP:ORGSIG and WP:INHERITORG, all of which are pretty clear cut? Simply existing does not confer notability. be siege d talk 21:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The National Assessment and Accreditation Council is reputable and is not part of this institution's marketing department. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We have long considered that all accredited degree-awarding institutions are notable. That is a longstanding consensus. Clearly that's what you utterly fail to understand. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge with Sikkim University, this article is about a college or appendage that is a part of a notable university. Since the Harkamaya College of Education does not have multiple, reliable sources a stand alone article does not meet WP:N and may be included as a short summary under the notable institution. This institution does appear to exist but it looks like a distance learning facility according to: (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Harkamaya+College,+6th+mile,,+Tadong,+Gangtok,+Sikkim+737102,+India/@27.3105755,88.5975893,3a,66.8y,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sCAoSLEFGMVFpcE5wZmV3NWVKUzN3RXpsaTdTMkpRWDJuTUlMYVJDNjlLUWZQcFRr!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x39e6a500ffffffff:0x23a61f2ea1d6c738) which suggests that it is Sikkim Manipal University Distance Education. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, we appear to have confusion about the status of affiliated colleges in India. These are not "part" of the university to which they are affiliated. They are entirely independent institutions whose degrees are simply accredited by those universities. A merger would thus be entirely inappropriate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And there is a specific reliable source, besides the College's own page, that indicates factual evidence to support your statement that Sikkim Manipal University Distance Education actually is not Harkamaya College of Education? Because at this point there is significant ambiguity about the existence of the institution and it's organization. Don't throw around simplistic statements. In any case, a merger of affiliated colleges has been done where appropriate. See College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Additionally, according to the Harkayama website Sikkim University awards the degrees at Harkamaya College of Education. It could be easily argued that there is no difference between this type of organization and traditional Collegiate university or between this and remote distance learning sites at American institutions with satellite locations. 14:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It can actually be easily argued that there is a very definite difference. It has in fact been so argued successfully numerous times before. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And I would add that this college pre-dates Sikkim University, so cannot be considered part of it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 86.17.222.157, absolutely it can. If an institution has a relationship to another then it can be considered a part of another institution founded later. Mergers and separations happen. So do other formal and informal partnership agreements between institutions. See List of university and college mergers in the United States for a litany of examples. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are simply using guesswork here rather than recognise that your interpretation of "affiliated" has been explained to be wrong. For the first years of its existence this college was affiliated with one university, and then when a state university was established in Sikkim it switched affiliation. This is a demonstration that "affiliated with" does not mean "part of". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for repeating ad naseum your opinion. Affiliations can change, time in case you weren't aware, goes on. Your opinion does not discount my posts above and your are not 'correct' in defining how it should be shown anymore than I am. As I stated above the degree granting institution is Sikkim University. Even so, there is precedent that two independent affiliated universities can exist on the same page as in College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University. So your point to me is not relevant and does not have any meaningful bearing on whether to keep, or, delete the page. In any case, I believe that based on the lack of notable references we should move forward in merging all of the 'affiliated' small institutions with the page that contains the degree granting institution. This is in effect how collegiate university are currently shown and an appropriate way of explaining their relationships to the reader. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am baffled that the keep !voters would rather argue the finer points of institutional affiliation and accreditation in India than simply provide a few sources. If this organisation is actually notable, it shouldn't be this hard to prove it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2018 (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.