Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Guru Gobind Singh College of Commerce


 * 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 --- Deville (Talk) 04:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sri Guru Gobind Singh College of Commerce
I prodded this article as short, non-notable and not likely to be expanded. But then it got deprodded with the claim we need note that we normally keep all colleges and universities recorded. Im not going to get into that argument but if thats the basis for keeping this article then there should be twice as many articles here on WP then there actually is! Basically the article is tiny and fairly useless as it simply lists the name of the college and location - something that is easily taken care of in a list of such colleges (someything I personally would approve); here it is just taking up space. As to expanding it? Well the college website and various google results give no info on it's history, scale or size, rather it is a lot of POV advertising for next years courses - good for the college site but no good for us. I am all in favour of recording the existence of colleges like this but in this form - as loads of short useless articles - it is very clunky, I doubt many people will find this. Instead there should be a list of all these colleges (with the notable ones getting their own articles) and if someone does that great! For now I really feel this is article is uneeded and should be deleted Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is a stub is not a criterion for deletion, rather a criterion for expansion. WilyD 15:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The above does not accurately represent my stated deprod. I said that "we normally keep all colleges", not that we need them.  PROD is for non-controversial deletions, and since we normally keep all colleges, deleting one is controversial and unsuitable for prod. I did this as part of my daily PROD patrol.  I have not yet formed an opinion as to this article, nor am I likely to until I do my daily AFD patrol for today's noms tomorrow.  GRBerry 15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   -- GRBerry 15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It hasn't been expanded since April, meaning the author has no intention of adding more to it. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not criteria for deletion, especially considering articles are hardly ever edited by one person alone. --Wafulz 16:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep – It is a college of teritary education, and that by itself makes it notable. School notability guideline. It's also listed in by the University Grant Commission which accredits colleges and universities in India. A  cleanup or stub notice is not sufficient grounds for deletion. And why is the article unneeded? Having a cleanup tag instead of a getting it deleted will attract more people to improve on the page. We're aren't running out of space that we should delete stuff as the nom claims.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nichalp. Batmanand | Talk 16:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep 3rd level is intrinsically notable   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment out of interest (and in no way a dig at all your opinions) but how is listing the name and address (essentially) of a college like this in a seperate article is to me pretty pointless. I am not against stubs they are highly useful but to expand this requires someone with first hand local knowledge and sources - I cant do it over the net (or I would have instead of proding it in the first place). SO how is this article useful to the encylopedia. The only use it has is for someone looking for colleges in that region of India and even then they would have to look through the categories to find it - how many people do that! It wont appear in a search for something like colleges in india. Instead for now whay cant its name and location just reside in List of universities in India until the article can be created with some meaningful content. At the moment it is simply a dead end... --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 18:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhm, like many stubs, it's not all that valuable. But that's not a criterion for deletion.  If you're making lumber, you don't smash all your acorns because they can't be used to build coffee tables ... WilyD 18:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nichalp. _Doctor Bruno_ _Talk_ /E Mail 20:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Smerge This is a college within the University of Delhi. This makes it a portion of a university.  As it has no meaningful content, in my eyes, it can just be smerged to University of Delhi.  That may someday get big enough to need sub-articles, but right now it is predominantly a collection of redlinks.  GRBerry 03:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * merge, I would support that merge then. You see it wasnt even clear from that stub this was the case! A merge keeps the content without having this stub hanging around :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 09:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merging is not the solution. You must be aware that an article of this nature would attract contributors are causal anon contributors. By deleting the page (based on lack of information), you are actually preventing them from recreating an article. By leaving it in a 'cleanup' state, you're inviting them to improve the page. I also smell a systemic bias here. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Bias? Come again? You mean negatively against the article? hmmm. I do sort of see where your coming from now :D Although I still dont see what meaningful content can be got from this article even if it is added to. I see your point about casual contribuotrs and I also agree (hving looked again at that list page) that merging is a worse option :D. I still think that this would be better under a general article about the dehli colleges. There are a few good articles there, Delhi College of Engineering foir instance, but that is a much larger (from what I can gather from vaious sites - mostly the colleges sites) and has been running longer. I cannot find any info about the history or makeup of the commerce college at all! IMO the they should all get a section on a page called Colleges under the university of Dehli with the smaller colleges (such as this) just getting a section of those few paragraphs and the larger ones getting a short section and a link to a main article about it. In that case leaving this current page as a redirect so people know it is there would be a good option!!!!
 * Yes, a little negatively biased against the article. WikiProject Countering systemic bias has some additional information on how to prevent this. At this moment, extra meaningful content may not be present, but does it mean that it can't exist as a standalone article? There could be many reasons why GSCoC attracts less attention here than Delhi College of Engineering. Some possible answers to this are: 1. What are the number of contributors from Delhi who can expand on this? 2. What about the nature of contributions coming from these users? There may be a few thousands, but they need not contribute to the educational domain or their alma maters. (I have never contributed to mine) They may perhaps focus on topics as diverse as chess, cryptography, Islamic architecture, or oceans. 2. Assuming that a former or present student/staff of the college has contributed to the article, the question to be asked is: What is the level of tech savyness from the college? Most contributions in wikipedia come from people who have 24x7 access to the internet. Thus, in many places across the world, engineering colleges are likely to produce more wikieditors than a humanities-oriented college (something like this is mentioned in WP:CSB). Lastly, I'm not sure why it is called for merging the article into the university article. Many universities in metropolitan cities in India have several hundred colleges affiliated to them which actually take care of enrollment. The function of the university in this case is to set the syllabus, exam paper, and award the degree. The college does the rest of the work: enrollment, lower level paper correction, teaching, fees etc. This may not be the case in many parts of the world, so that's why I have raised the suspicion of being a little systemic biased. And Tmorton166, it's ok to vacillate, that is a natural process during a discussion. :) =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As I was the first to suggest merge, I feel I should chime in. I hope realizing that I also removed the prod will address some of the concern about bias.  I do think that the article is currently of poor quality; here  is the form it was in when I deprodded - it was a sub-stub then.  As now slightly expanded, it might rise to the stub level.  But there isn't anything there that couldn't work in a table with columns like degrees, founded, student size, staff size, etc...  That the college is currently adding a building isn't really encyclopedic content; given the way India's economy has been going I expect most business and technology schools are expanding.  To contrast the article the business school at my alma-mater, and one that I can see part of the campus of if I walk to the window, look at MIT Sloan School of Management.  That is a very good college article, which I'd never bothered to look at before writing this comment.  If you go to the university article Massachusetts Institute of Technology, you'll see that only 2 of 6 schools have an article, as well as 3 of 30 departments.  (I don't know which is the better comparison.)  The merge I proposed, if the merged target carried out, would leave the various colleges of the University of Delhi with more comprehensive coverage than the schools of the university that is both closest to me and my alma-mater.  Systemic bias isn't the issue, an article that isn't worth keeping is the issue.  GRBerry 21:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it doesnt hapen like that in the UK, but I did get the gist of that from the article. I would refute that I have systematic bias. I regularly write for Wikinews (as an IP for several months and as a username for the last week) averaging around 2 articles a day on topics across the world- systematic bias is something I have learned to avoid from that :D :D I still dont feel this college can have alot of notable content for the moment. Perhaps deleting it is a tad strong but I do like the idea of a page (seperate from the university page itself) with all the colleges getting a short subsection. Then the college names redirectin to that. Of course the colleges with already larger article could get their own page and just short 'intro' on the lists page. The name Colleges under the university of Dehli is really just an identifier and a way to group them all together. That way we get more meaningful content in one place (what oif someone wants to compare colleges for example) with the ability to fork any information away from the 'main article' if it becomes of meaningful length. I realise this isn't technically normal policy but I think it would make it all look cleaner and friendlier to someone who is here to read WP as an Encyclopedia (something i thin k us regualtr editors dont consider often enough!) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 15:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep pending adding of facts/sources Bakaman Bakatalk 00:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nichalp -- Lost (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Tertiary institution. Piccadilly 01:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect per GRBerry. Hornplease 09:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Then anyone can expand or merge as needed. --Usgnus 17:54, 4 September 2006 (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.