Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K College


 * 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 keep. Seems like GNG is met here, going by the latest comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

K College

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Entry contains out-of-date, inaccurate and biased information. The neutrality of the article is disputed, notably the sections on recruitment of staff at East Kent College, written with an obvious bias towards that institution i.e. the line "In comparison, East Kent College have recruited at least 40 extra staff since taking over the Folkestone & Dover campuses" as this is pulled from an August 2014 Kent on Sunday article, which may have been valid at the time, but is not at all relevant now. The alumni list features people who attended during the West Kent College era, not K College era. Original author of this entry has been blocked indefinitely.

There is an existing page for 'West Kent College (2014)' - which already makes reference to the K College era within its history. The detail from both has now been merged into one entry, for context. As a comparison here, the University of Gloucestershire page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Gloucestershire) does include reference to predecessor Colleges, but these do not have their own entries e.g. Cheltenham & Gloucestershire College of HE. Poggs77 (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as a tertiary institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. AfD is about the notability of the subject, not the quality of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid rationale and you know it. Aside from the SCHOOLOUTCOMES RfC, which you dubiously claim below does not apply, there is also WP:OSE. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you and the other deletionists do think it also applies to tertiary institutions? Pray tell where it says this and how my claim is dubious. But I'll add this if you insist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Pray explain why I am a deletionist. And why OSE does not apply. On recent evidence, you should resign your bit. - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read the link I posted above. It explains all my reasons and has nothing to do with OSE (consensus over hundreds of AfDs is not OSE, incidentally). And please also explain why you think the RfC applies to tertiary colleges. "resign your bit"? How quaint, but I have no idea what you're on about. Are you saying I should resign as an admin? Because I disagree with you? How very arrogant! I wasn't aware that admins weren't allowed to express opinions at AfD. New one on me. Please point me to where it says that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Whilst I don't support the calls for your resignation, it was you who started this off by branding Sitush as a deletionist and that doesn't paint any less-arrogant picture to me. Winged Blades Godric 17:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't honestly think it's unreasonable to suggest that someone who is trying to use an RfC on one group of articles as an excuse to delete another group of articles (and who claimed that saying this was invalid was "dubious") may be a deletionist. It was a statement of fact, not an insult. I would also point out that it's slightly disingenuous of you to say that I started this off!. I'd like to be able to post my opinion at AfD, as is my right, without snarky remarks from the same two or three editors who disagree with it, that's all. Voice your own opinion, fine. But don't try to claim mine is somehow invalid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to do anything. I haven't even !voted, merely passed a comment because of your known misrepresentation of the RfC etc. I really don't care much forthe whole schools issue and rarely participate. It was your opening comment at the Drmies thread that got me involved on this occasion because once again it seemed to be a case of an admin not understanding consensus, which is worrisome wherever it may happen. - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Per the RfC that Necrothesp so delightful chooses to ignore. And so clearly states that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a relevant argument. The Banner talk 14:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry? Did the RfC suddenly mutate from a discussion about secondary schools to one about tertiary institutions? I hadn't realised that it was in fact secretly about all educational institutions! Maybe you'd care to explain to all of us where it says this? Because my reading is that it refers to secondary schools only. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete--RFC or no RFC, this fails our gen. notability guideline and it is the onus of keep !voters to prove to the contrary rather than banking on a mixture of OSE and circular-reasoning. Keep--Per newly discovered sources. Winged Blades Godric 17:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG and Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them.; which seems to put the onus on delete !voters to do a good-faith effort to find sources. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Editors are not expected to prove..... And, whilst I drew a blank on search of sources, I couldn't rely that the sole keep! voter, prior to you conducted some sort of search, before chiming in with the one-liner. Winged Blades Godric 10:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails the GNG. Without reliable and independent sources we can't write a quality article on any topic.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC).
 * Keep Since we're all accepting the RfC, let's accept the close in its entirety, including the parts where it says that a deeper search must be conducted before deleted for not meeting GNG - At minimum, this search should include some local print media.. Certainly not every random degree-mill esque school with say a hundred students should be kept; but a college that had 25000 students...


 * I'll rescue this rationale with some sources, that should be enough..(but from one publication)
 * . There's also a ref to "Private Eye no 1355 p31" in the article. Dunno how much coverage is there, though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm a bit confused by this AFD and the delete !votes. The nominator did not advance an argument for deletion, admitting that West Kent College (2014) exists as a merge/redirect target per WP:ATD, so there is that. But I'm also confused by the "Without reliable and independent sources" and "fails our gen. notability guideline" !votes. For one, AFD is not a place you just dump an article and challenge others to do the WP:BEFORE work you didn't do yourself. But be that as it may, let's just google for five minutes, shall we?
 * There you have sources that prove the school's existence and the facts, so it's clear the subject needs to be included in some form, either as a stand-alone article or within another article, but certainly not deleted. And citing an RFC about secondary schools at an AFD about a tertiary school is obviously not a good argument... Regards  So Why  10:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There you have sources that prove the school's existence and the facts, so it's clear the subject needs to be included in some form, either as a stand-alone article or within another article, but certainly not deleted. And citing an RFC about secondary schools at an AFD about a tertiary school is obviously not a good argument... Regards  So Why  10:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There you have sources that prove the school's existence and the facts, so it's clear the subject needs to be included in some form, either as a stand-alone article or within another article, but certainly not deleted. And citing an RFC about secondary schools at an AFD about a tertiary school is obviously not a good argument... Regards  So Why  10:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There you have sources that prove the school's existence and the facts, so it's clear the subject needs to be included in some form, either as a stand-alone article or within another article, but certainly not deleted. And citing an RFC about secondary schools at an AFD about a tertiary school is obviously not a good argument... Regards  So Why  10:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not even about secondary school but I am baffled some people are just trying to counter SCHOOLOUTCOMES without even confirming what kind of school they are dealing with. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem may relate to the different uses of the term school. Its usage is much broader in the US than, say, the UK. - Sitush (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sufficient sources to meet GNG, with thanks to and  for listing sources here. I've made a first rewriting pass through the article and will be checking that all of these are cited, and covering at least one bare link. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. if the material in the article needs improvement, fix it. It is better to maintain the rule that all institutions of higher education are notable than to argue each one of the many thousands of them.  DGG ( talk ) 09:19, 2 February 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.