342:, and that long-established see will be notable. There are similar aspects to some professorial chairs. However a "college" these days often means no more than a brass plate on the door and a dubious, if not downright fraudulent, self-appointed claim to now be a "college". Although I would even agree that all "real colleges" are notable (such a college has been made notable by its required recognition from its degree-awarding body), there are far too many "fake colleges" around to take a college's own word for its bona fides. We need, as per general WP requirement, some reliable 3rd party sourcing.
52:. There is broad, but not universal, consensus that certain kinds of topics (e.g. villages and towns) are always notable, but there is less consensus as to what this means in terms of the GNG. Are such topics notable because multiple, independent, reliable sources are virtually certain to exist even if only off-line, or should our coverage of certain topics be comprehensive even in the absence of sources that meet the GNG definition of notability (While noting that
268:. Now for high schools and upwards we have a general assumption that such establishements will be notable, but that's still not beyond challenge. In this case we have no hard sourcing that the place exists as a real school or institute, just one self-published source. For an Indian educational establishment (with all the self-serving puffery, plagiarism and downright lying that implies) that's just not enough.
319:- I find it difficult to reconcile those subjects which have inherent notability from the clear statements in Wikipedias notability guidelines. Why Colleges, schools, Bishops, Professors should all enjoy this automatic elevation to notability does not seem , to me at least, justifiable. This one in particular is neither referenced and is barely a stub.
56:
is an irreducible criterion for inclusion)? In any event, this article meets the community standard as an accredited tertiary educational institution. The consensus below is that it is not a fraudulent "degree-mill" but a "real college" and that that is enough to justify retention.
163:
448:
447:: A college with over 4,000 students. The long-standing precedent at AfD, in practice, is that all colleges are notable (save maybe very small or unaccredited institutions) if they are verifiable. See, e.g.,
472:, and could be deleted even during the pendency of this AfD. But we still would have a very small stub that meets our general practice of keeping most colleges that are verifiable as such.--
157:
217:
124:
97:
92:
101:
84:
282:
If this institution doesn't exist then it is incapable of self-serving puffery, plagiarism and downright lying. Please try to make your arguments logically consistent.
362:
296:
By "exist" of course I mean "exist as an accredited educational institution", rather than just being someone with a website and a printer of degree certificates.
382:
178:
145:
88:
244:
Higher education institutions are inherently notable. The problem with this article is a lack of independent references (so tag it as
481:
460:
439:
416:
396:
374:
351:
329:
305:
291:
277:
257:
234:
203:
66:
139:
80:
72:
17:
135:
230:
185:
500:
40:
151:
435:
347:
301:
287:
273:
199:
496:
36:
477:
412:
62:
171:
253:
213:
431:
392:
370:
343:
297:
283:
269:
226:
195:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
495:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
473:
429:
408:
58:
453:
339:
265:
249:
388:
366:
323:
221:
118:
194:
Contested prod. Unreferenced for over two years. No indication of any notability
469:
53:
338:
I can understand it for bishops - a bishop is an appointed candidate to a
449:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Moscow
University for the Humanities
425:
489:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
407:. Tertiary institutions are generally held to be notable. --
248:), though the Institute's own web site ought to be a source.
114:
110:
106:
170:
264:
Nothing is "inherently notable", it all has to meet
218:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 10
212:
This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
503:). No further edits should be made to this page.
468:. The remaining unsourced text currently fails
184:
8:
381:Note: This debate has been included in the
363:list of Schools-related deletion discussions
361:Note: This debate has been included in the
383:list of India-related deletion discussions
380:
360:
7:
24:
81:Dehradun Institute of Technology
73:Dehradun Institute of Technology
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
482:05:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
461:17:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
440:15:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
417:11:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
397:00:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
375:00:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
352:11:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
330:20:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
306:21:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
292:21:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
278:19:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
258:11:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
235:12:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
216:). I have transcluded it to
204:12:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
67:09:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
520:
492:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
428:-accredited college.
210:Automated comment:
48:The result was
459:
399:
386:
377:
511:
494:
458:
387:
328:
224:
189:
188:
174:
122:
104:
34:
519:
518:
514:
513:
512:
510:
509:
508:
507:
501:deletion review
490:
320:
222:
131:
95:
79:
76:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
517:
515:
506:
505:
485:
484:
463:
442:
419:
401:
400:
378:
357:
356:
355:
354:
333:
332:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
261:
260:
238:
237:
192:
191:
128:
75:
70:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
516:
504:
502:
498:
493:
487:
486:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
464:
462:
456:
455:
450:
446:
443:
441:
437:
433:
430:
427:
423:
420:
418:
414:
410:
406:
403:
402:
398:
394:
390:
384:
379:
376:
372:
368:
364:
359:
358:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
336:
335:
334:
331:
327:
326:
325:
318:
315:
314:
307:
303:
299:
295:
294:
293:
289:
285:
281:
280:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
262:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
240:
239:
236:
232:
228:
225:
219:
215:
211:
208:
207:
206:
205:
201:
197:
187:
183:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
137:
134:
133:Find sources:
129:
126:
120:
116:
112:
108:
103:
99:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
74:
71:
69:
68:
64:
60:
55:
54:verifiability
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
491:
488:
465:
452:
444:
432:Phil Bridger
421:
404:
344:Andy Dingley
322:
321:
316:
298:Andy Dingley
284:Phil Bridger
270:Andy Dingley
246:unreferenced
245:
241:
209:
196:Andy Dingley
193:
181:
175:
167:
160:
154:
148:
142:
132:
49:
47:
31:
28:
158:free images
474:Epeefleche
409:Necrothesp
59:Eluchil404
497:talk page
389:• Gene93k
367:• Gene93k
37:talk page
499:or in a
454:Milowent
250:Emeraude
125:View log
39:or in a
324:Velella
223:Snotbot
164:WP refs
152:scholar
98:protect
93:history
424:as an
317:Delete
266:WP:GNG
214:step 3
136:Google
102:delete
426:AICTE
179:JSTOR
140:books
119:views
111:watch
107:links
16:<
478:talk
470:wp:v
466:Keep
445:Keep
436:talk
422:Keep
413:talk
405:Keep
393:talk
371:talk
348:talk
302:talk
288:talk
274:talk
254:talk
242:Keep
200:talk
172:FENS
146:news
115:logs
89:talk
85:edit
63:talk
50:Keep
451:.--
340:see
233:»
220:.
186:TWL
123:– (
480:)
457:•
438:)
415:)
395:)
385:.
373:)
365:.
350:)
304:)
290:)
276:)
256:)
229:•
202:)
166:)
117:|
113:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
65:)
476:(
434:(
411:(
391:(
369:(
346:(
300:(
286:(
272:(
252:(
231:c
227:t
198:(
190:)
182:·
176:·
168:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
138:(
130:(
127:)
121:)
83:(
61:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.