Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raja Dashrath Medical 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 delete. Consensus is that there's no inherent notability and the sourcing does not add up to notability, with even the main provider of the sources concurring that. Language is no dount an issue, and I have no issue draftifying this if someone thinks more sources can be identified with time. I don't think another week will fix it Star   Mississippi  00:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Raja Dashrath Medical College

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

College does not meet the notability guidelines. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The subject is very new, maybe given some time it will be able to demonstrate notability. Toadspike (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:TOOSOON — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:TOOSOON at best unless significant independant coverage is found. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Many references have since been found. RTripathiKarnataka (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing my !vote as there are new sources found by Hemantha, but I've not looked at them properly. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I found some trivial coverage related to the college and the pandemic, but that's it and in no way does the little coverage there is make this notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, let's act normal!. High schools are deemed notable in Wikipedia so a medical college definitely is. There are already scholarly research papers being published by faculty members and lists the medical college's name so that meets notability guidelines. Let's be reasonable, folks. Charliestalnaker (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters because your argument is nonsense anyway, but high schools aren't inherently notable anymore and there's been plenty of AfDs for colleges that resulted in delete. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Acting normal" and "being reasonable" would include being aware of standard notability practice, which includes that there is no presumptive notability for high schools, nor is notability inherited by an institution's name being on a paper. I recommend better familiarizing yourself with the applicable notability guidelines before lecturing others.   Ravenswing      06:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment this seems significant, but it's hard to find information in English from India, where hundreds of languages are spoken from a desk in the US. I suspect if a similar institution of a similar size existed in the US, UK, Australia or Canada, there would be no discussion of it's notability here. The recent consensus appears to be that non-English subjects aren't notable unless they're written about in English language sources, because it's just too much trouble for English speakers to deal with.Jacona (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No one has said there has to be English language references, but there still needs to be evidence that non-English ones exist. Otherwise, anyone any create articles about any non-English subject they want no matter how trivial it is and just play the language card. In the meantime there's plenty of articles for actually notable non-English subjects in the English Wikipedia that no one gives a crap about and aren't trying to have deleted just because the references are in other languages. It's rather disingenuous to suggest otherwise or that there's some consensus on here about it that doesn't exist. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Plus if a similar institution had an article, WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a reason to not delete. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Beyond the above, there's a school of thought on Wikipedia that if there's some reason to feel that finding sources is "hard" for a particular subject, the requirements of WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are somehow waived in its favor. This peculiar notion is completely false.  If sources providing significant coverage for a subject cannot be found, then an article cannot be sustained, full stop.   Ravenswing      06:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not at all what I meant to convey. There's also a school of thought that if they can't find it in 5 seconds with a single google search, that it's not notable. Sources are still sources if they aren't in English, aren't online, and are referred to by alternate names. N, GNG, and SIGCOV do not require English and do not require online sources. When it's pretty obvious that there should be sources, such as a school that's been in existence for around 400 years that was recently nominated for deletion, we need to take a deep breath and consider whether it is the article's subject that is flawed, or our skills at finding the sources. In other words, we should 1.) use some common sense, 2.) consider the shortcomings in our personal skills (we all have them) and biases (we all have them). Jacona (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, reliable sources providing the significant coverage the GNG requires need not be in English, and need not be online. They still need to be PRODUCED: whether or not the subject is "flawed" (huh?), whether or not editors are (allegedly) good at finding them or not, whether it takes just five seconds or five days. Far from being optional, this is an irreducible core policy of Wikipedia, and it is the explicit responsibility of editors who wish to save content to do so.   Ravenswing      13:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Full of sources. What is the matter with people?
 * https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/lucknow-news/up-got-12-medical-colleges-in-69-years-till-2016-but-32-in-last-four-years-says-yogi-adityanath-101627230987602.html After inspecting the Raja Dashrath Medical College, popularly known as Ayodhya Medical College, Adityanath said to media persons: “In the ongoing session, 14 new medical colleges are being constructed with the help of the central government.”
 * https://www.news18.com/news/politics/ram-temple-construction-opens-doors-of-many-possibilities-for-ayodhya-yogi-4400678.html noting the "Raja Dashrath Medical College"
 * https://religionnews.com/2019/02/26/indias-hindu-nationalists-vow-to-restore-deitys-birthplace-to-former-glory/ stating: Sachin Dubey, a medical representative at the town’s recently opened Raja Dashrath Medical College, said that naming and renaming of institutions is just part of the government’s strategy for cultural appropriation. “Our medical college is named after Rama’s father, Dashrath,” said Dubey. “In a way it’s to recall the ancient ayurvedic systems of the Indian sages who had the best cures to illnesses.”
 * If people were not on a rampage to delete stuff and hurt Wikipedia but just look for sources, you will find many, many citations. RTripathiKarnataka (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC) — RTripathiKarnataka (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   Ravenswing     02:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * These look like passing mentions, not significant coverage for WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See Hemantha's comment below with additional references. A medical college is typically a major endeavour so it typically should be enough to justify a Wikipedia article. People should, for this article, take a different approach by asking "is this a fly-by-night school that is not worthy of an article?" to which the answer would be "no, it is a standard medical school, albeit quite newly established". RTripathiKarnataka (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete This shouldn't have been relisted (as the keep arguments are not policy compliant or convincing), but oh well. Fails WP:SIGCOV. I mean, some of the sources sure do mention this, but  has no in-depth coverage about this, and  at best only has a short paragraph about it getting funding for a few projects - Among projects which are to be dedicated to the people include a lecture hall, an administrative building, a library, an academic block and boys/girls hostel at Rajshri Dashrath State Medical Degree College at a total cost of Rs 134 crore., but that's not really coverage of the college, it's coverage of the local government's actions, and is nowhere near enough to support an article on this institution. Maybe a redirect could also be a possibility, but I wouldn't quite know where (Ayodhya? Education in Uttar Pradesh? List of institutions of higher education in Uttar Pradesh seems like the most plausible, but that list only has notable entries, so wouldn't be appropriate here)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  20:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Possible bad faith vote Mr. Canadian is following me around and opposing my AFD votes because of an editorial disagreement. Charliestalnaker (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This comment was removed by Mr. Canadian, a clear violation of decorum. This is a medical school and with plenty of news coverage, though most of it is regional. Charliestalnaker (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete: The mentions in the sources posted above (by an SPA with exactly two Wikipedia edits, mind) are mere namedrops, and don't come close to meeting WP:SIGCOV. No evidence presented that the GNG has been met.   Ravenswing      06:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Highly aggressive and in bad faith by accusing me of SPA. I am not in the sexual spa business and also have more than 2 Wikipedia edits. RTripathiKarnataka (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There isn't much to keep in the current version, but now that there is a lot of attention here, how do the following look purely for WP:GNG? All are in Hindi, I've linked to machine-translated versions.


 * A strict reading of WP:NOTNEWS would rule out a lot of the above, but it appears to me that there's enough for something slightly more than a stub. Hemantha (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition, many people in the Ayodhya area speak Awadhi so there is certainly additional sources in the Awadhi language. However, some Awadhi sources may be paper newspapers. I do not speak Awadhi. WP:NOTNEWS refers to what not to include in an article but coverage of the subject in the news is evidence of Wikipedia notability and is NOT a reason to say that the reference does not count towards documenting Wikipedia non-deletion. RTripathiKarnataka (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll vote Keep, even though this'll probably go the other way. Hemantha (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly, after actually going over those links carefully, instead of just throwing up the first page of a Google News search. First off, links #2, #3 and #5 are broken.  More damningly, #1, #4, #6 and #8 are press releases, and as such cannot support the notability of the subject. #7 doesn't seem to be a press release, but it's also a short piece, and its claim to represent WP:SIGCOV is shaky.  Mere "coverage of the subject in the news" does not satisfy WP:ORG or the GNG.  Significant coverage does.  This is not it.   Ravenswing      13:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All links are working for me, even in separate browsers, but here are the originals - 2, 3, 5.
 * I can understand how 1,4,8 are seen as PRs. I listed them to show how much content can be sourced for an article. Apologies for not clearly marking them so. But #6 doesn't seem to be explicitly PR.
 * I completely agree WP:ORG isn't satisfied, but I'm not sure that applies to a government, i.e. non-profit, college.
 * #2, a negative one, appears indisputably independent and significant to me. My vote is based on the presumption that if somebody like me with only passing Hindi knowledge can find these, editors with better local knowledge might be able to source other qualifying online and offline coverage. Hemantha (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we can't "presume." If adequate sources are not presented, an article cannot be sustained. That being said, I agree that #2 looks like a good source (and thank you for posting the original links). #3's definitely a press release; I'm not sure about #5 so far.  So far I'm still on a weak delete on the GNG front, but about one more good source would do it.   Ravenswing      16:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's that one more good source... https://education.medicaldialogues.in/faizabad-renamed-ayodhya-to-get-medical-college-named-after-raja-dashrath
 * Faizabad Renamed Ayodhya; To Get Medical College Named After Raja Dashrath
 * Charliestalnaker (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No. In a long article detailing a ministerial visit and the announcement of several developmental projects, this is all the source says concerning the subject: "A medical college will be established here in Ayodhya, I want it to be named after King Dasharatha." I'm willing to reconsider my vote should actual reliable sources providing significant coverage to the subject be produced.  Wasting our time in hoping we'll swallow one-sentence casual mentions is not productive.   Ravenswing      02:12, 7 April 2022 (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.