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. Whether to create a redirect is an editorial decision.

We still do not agree whether certain types of school should be considered inherently notable, and that discussion has been going in circles for a long time. But this AfD is particular in that the "delete" side contends that there are no third-party reliable sources to make the content of this article even verifiable. Prima facie, that seems to be true, given that all references in the article are to the school's own website. One could argue that this website is an acceptable primary source, but that argument is not made here, and in any case the idea of sourcing an article exclusively to the subject itself is anathema to the concept and practice of verifiability as we understand it.

The "keep" arguments all assert notability based on this being a college, but they do not address the sourcing concerns or offer new sources. Because of the fundamental importance of WP:V as a core policy, which cannot be superseded by local consensus, the "keep" opinions have to be disregarded. Sandstein 19:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Loyola College, Vettavalam

Loyola College, Vettavalam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail the notability guidelines. No independent sourcing for the details. Looks like promo. The Banner  talk 20:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment, tertiary education institutions are usually notable, see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, lack of independent sources in the article (at the moment?) are a concern but may be a case of article improvement not deletion? Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Schooloutcomes does not state that with so many words... The Banner  talk 22:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• WP:Schooloutcomes discusses the probable outcome of a deletion discussion for a school; any attempt to use it in such a discussion is inherently circular. For that reason it is among the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• but i like circular reasoning, therfore i like circular reasoning Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Thiruvalluvar University unless multiple, substantial, in-depth independent reliable sourcing can be provided – at the moment it's sourced entirely to its own website, so there's no indication whatsoever of notability. It's possible that there may be sources in languages other than English; but in English, there are no hits on GoogleNews and no relevant hits on GBooks. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I have tried to find a "local" name, but not even the school website provides such a name. The Banner  talk 23:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The RfC on schools concluded there was no basis to change the practice of always keeping articles on high schools. Every reason for that applies all the more to colleges. A reason for deletion might be lack of independence, but I see no evidence that its affiliation to Thiruvalluvar is other than the customary Infian way of getting the degrees authenticated. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Creative interpretation of the RfC. Unfortunately, the RfC is NOT stating your interpretation clearly. But it is stated clearly that school are not notable just because they exist. Their notability must be proven... The Banner  talk 06:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• agree that sources beyond "existence" is required, which is why mine above was a "comment", btw doesnt point 2 talk of tertiary ie. degree issuing (Loyalla is apparently ug and pg), institutions are notable, but do require independent sources? Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

oh no, am i being circular again?:)) Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Thiruvalluvar University. No WP:RS to be found, at least in English or in Google translation. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 05:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC) /info/en/?search=Loyola_College,_Vettavalam reply
• Delete not fully independent enough to default a seperate article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep, poke around on their website and it quickly becomes apparent this is a real college - with a really rubbish english language website. Szzuk ( talk) 15:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • What about indepe/info/en/?search=Loyola_College,_Vettavalamndent sources to prove the notability of this school? The Banner  talk 17:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    • It only offers University degrees, in the UK every one of these would have an article, so I extend that logic to this college. Szzuk ( talk) 18:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Based on what policy? The Banner  talk 19:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep -- Per DGG. Furthermore, nom offers no good reasons to go against long-established WP practice of keeping articles on colleges. Colleges are notable, full stop. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 14:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The classic circular reasoning to keep something because it was kept in the past because it was kept in the past because it was kept in the past because it was kept in the past because it was kept in the past because it was kept in the past because it was kept in the past because it was kept in the past. Is there any policy-based argument? The Banner  talk 15:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    • The policy-based argument is that we keep things for which there is consensus to keep. The fact that they have routinely been kept in the past is evidence for consensus so we don't have to keep rearguing the same points every time someone wakes up and thinks they're going to change everything. See WP:FENCE and start another RfC if you want to change the long-established consensus that colleges are notable and their articles are kept. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 17:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
      • So you have no policy-based arguments? The Banner  talk 20:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Obvious Keep: secondary school articles are normally kept to prevent overwhelming and inundating AFD with deletion discussions. Which is just what seems to be happening with JZSJ's articles. Based on the rationale that secondary articles are kept as a matter of convention, we should obviously keep university articles. Per WP:PRESERVE, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:IFITAINTBROKE, WP:IAR. – Lionel^{( talk)} 01:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • So you prefer to keep non-notable institution based on a dodgy circular reasoning but without a policy-based background? The Banner  talk 08:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The argument for keep based on previous practice is not circular reasoning. One of the virtues of an encyclopedia is consistency. We deal with that by maintaining the status quo unless there is consensus to do otherwise. If necessary, we establish that consensus by an RfC. The most recent RfC said there was no consenus to change the practice of always keep secondary school articles. It didn't explicitly discuss universities, but whatever reasons apply to keeping high school articles, would apply all the more to universities.

True, the RfC also said there was no consensus that just referring to the original statement is commonoutcomes was not sufficient. I'm not referrring to common outcomes, but to the RfC, wich is he authority for saying there is no accepted change in the prior practice.

Additionally, there is the underlying reason for having this practice, which not that all high schools are notable, but that treating them as if they are is a compromise to avoid the many thousands of AfDs that would otherwise give essentially random results. The present AfD and the small number of subsequent AfDs, which have essentially given the same random decisions unrelated to the actual relative notability of the specific schools, is the best reason to continue the practice. Nobody is served by elaborate discussions that yield random results, neither those who wish to keep or to delete such articles.

And I mention there is another haldf to thecompromise: we do not routinely keep primary schools. If we didn['t continue to observe the compromise, we'd be debating every one of these also. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

So why are you starting those discussions when you know that is based on nothing. has there been a wiki-wide vote to determine this or is it just a local consensus among a small WikiProject? Why do you still believe in a consensus when that consensus is so often challenged? The Banner  talk 08:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

If you think the consensus has gone why don't you start a wiki-wide RfC to clarify the issue instead of making time-wasting nominations like this one? 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 12:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Here is that RfC... The Banner  talk 22:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment: Notability of colleges and universities is described as advice in an essay which is NOT a policy or guideline. Unfortunately, the essay's advice leaves us with a quandary that hinges on two assertions related to our discussion here: the first sentence in the "Notability" section, In general, all colleges and universities are de facto notable and should be included on Wikipedia; and a sentence under "Reliable sources", Self-published sources cannot comprise the majority of an article's citations, and cannot be used to establish a claim of notability. I have spent more time than I care to admit searching for reliable, independent secondary sources for this article, and only found another primary source, the founding organization, the site of a Jesuit mission in Madurai Province. As the sponsoring institution, we have to consider it as another "self-published" source. I could be wrong about that.

The college claims affiliation with Thiruvalluvar University, but that institution does not appear to list affiliation colleges individually, describing them only, "98 arts and Science college are affiliated to this university, of which 10 are government Arts and science colleges, 9 are aided Arts and science colleges, 3 are oriental title colleges, 72 are self financing Arts and Science Colleges and the remaining 4 are University Constituent colleges." Accreditation by India's National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) is granted to recognized universities, not separately to "Autonomous colleges/Constituent Colleges/ Affiliated Colleges (affiliated to universities recognised by UGC as an affiliating University", so we are left with a dearth of sources to establish verifiability.

Even though I am personally satisfied that Loyola College, Vettavalam, does exist because I believe that the Jesuit Channai Mission is a credible primary source, the sourcing identified does not establish a claim of notability for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the current WP article on Thiruvalluvar University does not list any affiliated colleges individually, so even a merge with that article does not look very promising. Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 18:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The consensus as established by the last RfC is that we keep all secondary schools (and that implies upwards also). As for affiliation, almost all Indian colleges have been affiliated with one of the universities that can actually award degrees. It doesn't imply dependency. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

You have a very special reading of that RfC. The Banner  talk 22:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) I'm not sure which RfC you're talking about, DGG, but presumably not the one in February 2017 where the main result was "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist"? For general reference, and for 192.160.216.52 in particular, here are the results of the RfC, copied straight from WP:Schooloutcomes:

The closure of this February 2017 RFC provided the following RfC nutshell results regarding the above section: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning. References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD. Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations.

I'm also having difficulty following your reasoning in your longer post higher up this page. If I read you correctly, you say "... [it's] not that all high schools are notable, but that treating them as if they are ...[avoids thousands of AfDs]". If that were a valid argument, why on earth would we not apply it to biographies? – think of all the AfD discussions that could be avoided! We could choose some arbitrary criterion (being dead, say), and just have a page on everyone who meets it. Or we could use our heads and apply some sensible and stringent criteria for inclusion. We do that for people, and we ought to be doing it for schools too. There are, I imagine, many millions of schools in the world (how many in China alone?); we obviously can't have an article on every one of them, and nor should we try to unless we also have something to say about them. To do that we need in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, just as we do for all other kinds of article. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

that's selective quoting from the nutshell, not the close. The close also said (in paragraph 3): " SO remains perfectly valid as a statement of what usually happens to extant secondary schools at AFD" It furthermore said about the proposition "Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?" answered "Based on the discussion, we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this stops short of a rough consensus." Thus, there is no consensus to reject the statement. Since this would seem somewhat contradictory to other selective quotes fro the closing, the only final result is there is no consensus to change anything in our prior practice. The text in the nutshell is a not actually a representation of the actual close--this is not all that unusual in WP--there are hundreds of such contradictions, which is why to the extent that the purpose of rules is to be a guide, "the actual rules are whatever we do consistently."

With people, experience shows we can come to somewhat rational results. Most fields of biography have standards supplementary to the GNG, which permit such decisions, and there is a rough agreement-- most of the time the more important are kept and the less important are not. (though the people interested in each of the various fields tend to think their field is treated unfairly strictly, within each field the decision make sense. For schools, it depends entirely on who shows up and on how much they care: before the compromise, the results were random having no connecting to any sense. Even if one wanted to try to decide rationally, in a field where sources are scarce, the result depends if you want to argue the qualifying terms in the GNG (substantial, independent, reliable, secondary) to yield a delete or keep result--I learned very soon that in any school afd I could equally do either. I have not analyzed the few recent afds, but the results so far seem equally random. To quote the close once more, "It's worth noting that this discussion does imply that schools are special."

the current state of things seems to be that each side is trying to persist longer than the other, which I suppose can be justified by saying the people who care the most will be most persistent. Basically, we need a truce. We had one for many years, until the school deletionists decided to break it. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I feel it may be usefull to have another RFC to see if we can get a clearer consensus. It’s been some time and we have had conversations like this on many school AfDs. BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 04:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

To my opinion, it would be good enough when people start adhering to the present consensus (see the RfC) that school articles can be removed when the article does not show its notability. The Banner  talk 05:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

If you find that people aren't "adhering to the present consensus" it may be time to start thinking about whether you misunderstand the present consensus. A consensus is by definition what people adhere to. I've been saying all along that if you all don't like SCHOOLOUTCOMES or its use in AfDs you ought to start an RfC on it rather than trying to pick off individual articles and accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you of violating some imaginary consensus. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 12:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep* Did the submitter bother to WP:BEFORE? Egaoblai ( talk) 16:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Did you bother about WP:AGF? The Banner  talk 23:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC) Yes, I did my research before I nominated. reply

What additional reliable sources have you identified, Egaoblai, that you think should have been found by a BEFORE search? I don't see that any have been mentioned here, nor that any have been added to the article. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 14:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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.