Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K.M.Govt.College Narwana


 * 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 merge to Kurukshetra University.  MBisanz  talk 12:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

K.M.Govt.College Narwana

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Makes no claim of notability. Fails to provide basic directory information, let alone to establish notability, but see Wikipedia is not a directory. Does not even say where the college is, and so is not even effectively promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete (per DEL8) for lack of notability under GNG or ORG. The article has been improved since nomination and now provides context and an arguable claim of notability. However, my good-faith search for reliable, independent sources offering even trivial coverage of the college found nothing. No coverage, no article. See FAILN; cf. WHYN. Rebb  ing  11:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete notability not established. Article creator has long history of creating non-notable articles and repeatedly removing deletion templates and recreating them after they're deleted. JDDJS (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as the village of Narwana in fact exists thus we cannot simply base a sole deletion of "not existing"; as with usual cases before, we consider whether there's offline sources available and it's something no one has shown here, therefore cannot be a presumptive solution. There are absolutely no violations of WP:NOT here, which is our main policy, and thus there's no policy-backed deletion basis. SwisterTwister   talk  21:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What an odd vote. No one is disputing that this college exists, so it's unclear why you're making a point about the existence of the city in which it is situated. DEL8—lack of notability—is a policy-based basis for deletion; in fact, it's the most common reason for deletion at AfD! Offline sources count for notability, but the onus for finding them lies with those voting "keep." See NEXIST ("[O]nce an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface."). Rebb  ing  21:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What you say is a perfect argument to why the page shouldn't be speedy deleted or even deleted via PROD. However, you make absolutely no case to why this cannot be deleted via AFD. WP:NOT is not "our main policy" as you say, but rather just one of many different polices. WP:NOTE is the relevant policy here, and you make no argument to support the fact the article is in fact notable. JDDJS (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article is better than it was when I proposed its uncontroversial deletion and then when I nominated it for deletion via discussion, but that doesn't say much, because it still doesn't establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Uncertain, probably merge WP:NOT is indeed our principal policy on what articles we keep. It's the basis for everything else about the content of the encyclopedia . WP:N is just a guideline, meant to explain one small part of it--NOT DIRECTORY. Other guidelines explain other parts, such as NOT ADVOCACY.  The meaning of a guideline is that it codifies what we usually do--not what we always do, because all guidelines permit exceptions. And WP:N says so explicitly. The status of schools is uncertain, and I urge re-reading of the close of the relevant AfC. It says SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not have consensus as a guideline. But it also says that there is no consensus to change the practice of keeping all secondary schools with verifiable existence. Quite how low in information we should go for this is undetermined. But the key point of considering all secondary schools as notable is to remove the need for these discussions, with their very random results. Consistency helps the readers.  DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you misread the RFC's close. You assert that it didn't "change the practice of keeping all secondary schools with verifiable existence," yet the close plainly states: "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." That's a clear refutation of the practice. One of the closing panel members recently reiterated that the RFC did indeed overturn that supposed consensus and precedent and that GNG and individual evaluation is now the proper standard for evaluating schools. Rebb  ing  15:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, since this isn't a secondary school. The RfC, which was not about undermining consensus in any case, was certainly not about tertiary institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Reread my argument. Whether or not they are notable, there remains the widespread convention to  consider them notable in order to avoid spending energy on thousands of discussions such as this for generally harmless articles, when there is so much actually bad material we need to deal with. The compromise, I remind you, was to not try to push the notability of elementary schools unless there was something really special. We have similar working compromises all over WP, though usually not articulated explicitly, but just in the consistent practice at AfD.  DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested by DGG, to Narwana. Maybe locally important. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge not to the locality, but to Kurukshetra University, the university with which it is affiliated per the rationale provided by DGG. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Redirect to Kurukshetra University as failing our notability guidelines for a standalone article. The article currently cites no sources, though a search confirms that it exists and that it's affiliated to the university, but that's about it. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2017 (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.