Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dehradun Institute of Technology

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. 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 verifiability 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dehradun Institute of Technology[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced for over two years. No indication of any notability Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 10. Snotbot t • c » 12:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Higher education institutions are inherently notable. The problem with this article is a lack of independent references (so tag it as unreferenced), though the Institute's own web site ought to be a source. Emeraude (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is "inherently notable", it all has to meet WP:GNG. 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. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 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. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand it for bishops - a bishop is an appointed candidate to a see, 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. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tertiary institutions are generally held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an AICTE-accredited college.[1] Phil Bridger (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 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., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moscow University for the Humanities.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The remaining unsourced text currently fails wp:v, 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.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2012 (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.