Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph’s College of Law


 * 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) 04:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

St. Joseph’s College of Law

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill college. Wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages. References are PRIMARY sources or are based on announcements. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 18:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete : non-notable institution; no alumni of note, apparently. Quis separabit?  02:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , Notable alumni are not required and do not add to notability of the article subject. See WP:ITSA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm...whilst AADD also has WP:OUTCOMESBASED, I would agree that it's not a very good reason.But, have you missed non-notable institution?! ~ Winged Blades Godric 14:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Retain My understanding is that tertiary educational institutions are of their nature notable. This is a brand new institution, so not many references yet, but three references given are: to the media source daijiworld.com where it is listed as a top story (though sourced from the Director of the school); on the KonKanCatholic website, by the editor; and as a news article in News Karnataka. Please give it time to attract more media attention, it's not five months old! Jzsj (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 26 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 14:36, 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) 15:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * HmmTo be fair, N is correct and that's actually a non-weigh-able !vote.Please re-correct your arguments. ~ Winged Blades Godric 15:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:UNI/AG. Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment My nomination was based on my assessment of this topic according to WP:NCORP for "organizations/companies". Is this law school a commercial profit-oriented organization? Without independent coverage in reliable sources, it fails GNG regardless of which guidelines is used.  HighKing++ 14:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We have never considered education institutions to fall into this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of the various discussions such as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES until now, but I have now read that and some others. I note that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that WP:ORG forms part of the notability guidelines for schools and colleges, so I am sticking with my nomination. Policy such as GNG states that independent in-depth sources must be available. The purpose of the guidelines available at WP:UNI/AG is not to provide educational institutions with an "easier" standard for inclusion and in my opinion, if less that two intellectually independent sources are available for any school or college, then it fails WP:ORG and therefore the topic also fails GNG. The essays and guidelines are not instead of policy, but to assist editors in interpreting policy.  HighKing++ 16:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is not a policy, . Indeed, the preamble contains the statement: . There is a clearly a number of users, probably deletionists, who are not aware of the many exceptions to notability guidelines, exceptions which incientaly do not only include various educational institutions. These exceptions are documented and are have been widely acccepted by the community for many years, as demonstrated in hundreds of AfD closures thus establishing clear precedents which we observe. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess that your'e not in a very good pedestal to brand others as deletionists.Just, IMO. ~ Winged Blades Godric  14:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete--Per nominator. Pure business entities, spawning out every here and there.This thread may be of some interest. ~ Winged Blades Godric 04:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , Approved by the Bar Council of India in New Delhi, such a school even if relatively new, is hardly in  need of advertising itself to those wishing to pursue a career in  law. Whilst I, as an experienced page patroller and deleting admin, would agree that many, if not most one-liners are spam, this is clearly  not so. 12:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
 * --That comes from an unfamiliarity with the Indian Education system.Any law-callege must be mandatorily affiliated by BCI or be subject to immediate closure as an illegal entity sans some exceptional cases.And these private colleges or degree-mills are in need of advertisement, to attract students and a WP entry surely helps in achieving that. ~ Winged Blades Godric 14:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You may well be right, and I would certainly bow to  your better knowledge of the Indian education system -  I  have never worked there in  law schools. Perhaps we should examine this in  context  with  Karnataka State Law University because while there is no  proof that  it  is a mill, we don't  hesitate  to  mention the fact  in  such  articles if there are sufficient  RS. Ironically, that would then be a good reason not to delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Engineering colleges and/or law colleges coupled with Bangalore is a red flag. AFAIR, a few years back, a TOI media-unit reported Bangalore to be a city where you will get to see more engineering/law colleges than sanitation facilities per street! KSLU etc. are definitely notable despite the self-sourced pathetic-state of the articles and I'll be happy enough to have it redirected to there. ~ Winged Blades Godric  14:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. all degree-granting intstitutions are considered notable atWP. It is better to maintain thixs tule than to try to argue details about each one individually.  DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Instituition or mill?! ~ Winged Blades Godric 14:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Does this college grant its own degrees? This appears to say that it grants degrees from Karnataka State Law University, Hubballi? Let me know. If it does grant its own degrees, then hey hey hey!.  HighKing++ 00:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * as you know, the situation in India is complicated, and in the process of changing. For many decades there was essentially no mechanism for a new college to get degree-granting authority,so theyawarded degrees through some existing institution, which essentially rubber-stamped them on the basis of the certificate of the actual teaching institution. But there are also numerous branches of some college systems best treated together.  DGG ( talk ) 11:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 14:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, you say that the situation in India is complicated and I admit that I have no idea how things operate in India. Since the basis of the Keep !votes here appear to rely on established consensus and interpretation that a college that grants its own degrees is notable, the onus is on the Keep !voters to show that this institution meets these criteria. But clearly, strictly speaking, this college does not grant its own degrees. Given that the situation in India is complicated, is it also an established consensus to make allowances for complicated situations (like India)? If so, can you point me to somewhere? Thank you. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 17:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Situations as complicated as India need be considered individually, for they are too diverse to have established practice. For the specific case of India, I think it really has to go university by university. The alternative to individual articles is a merged article, and for any university system anywhere in the world, this has to be considered. Among the key factors is the importance of the individual institution (in terms of prestige, how long its been established, number of graduates, importance in its local region, etc.), the independence of the institution, the amount of information available,  the importance of the group, and the nature of the group. For groups of institutions under common management, we often merge, especially if the existing articles are uniform and uniformly promotional .  For branch campuses, we merge until they have established significance in their own right,  For institutions that merely use another institution for the convenience of awarding degrees, we tend to keep separate.  India is distinctive mainly in the number & complexity of the systems and the various chronological layers of development, many of which seem to exist simultaneously ind inconsistently, but almost all the particular arrangements also occurs elsewhere .  (It's not the immediate situation here, but one factor to keep in mind, in India and elsewhere, is the tendency to have some degree of lose affiliation with more prestigious organizations--these are often in the nature of mere transfer arrangements to recognize the credits, but the college articles tend to make a very great deal of them for obvious promotional reasons. I usually remove them from the lead and the infobox.)
 * The GNG offers no help here, even to the extent it applies at all: in one of its realistic statements, it says that for organizations that meet notability , there can still be combination articles if there is insufficient information for full articles.  There is no clear-cut basis for makin gsuch choices.  DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 9 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.