Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Siddhartha Medical College

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. --BDD (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Sri Siddhartha Medical College

[edit]
Sri Siddhartha Medical College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No attempt made to demonstrate the notability of the college. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added an entry on this medical college from Medical Council of India website. This, and the Times of India article, prove that the medical college exists. It is not a hoax. This is a medical college whose existence is proven. As a tertiary center of education, it is notable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you please expand upon that a little bit? Not seeing an issue isn't a reason to keep or delete an article. The lack of reliable sources isn't an issue? The fact that schools are specifically noted to fall under WP:ORG, which this one fails, isn't an issue? - SudoGhost 10:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All colleges and universities and other institutions of higher education that grant degrees & have a real provable existence have consistently been held to be notable--there are always sources, even if we cannot find them in 7 days for some geographic areas. . This includes free standing medical schools. In any case, the Times of India is a sufficient source; it is normally the best we have for the country, and if we didn't count it, we'd not have many articles on the area. "Multiple " is not an absolute requirement--it depends on the quality of the source and the nature of the subject. For totally uncontroversial topics like this about things that generally are expected to be notable, a single article in an internationally known newspaper is fully sufficient--in any country. when it comes to material such as internet memes and small businesses and popular entertainers, most of which are definitely not notable, then we have more stringent requirements because we have nothing to go by except the sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verified tertiary education institutions are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they aren't; independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are, but even then the consensus on Wikipedia is that a school is not notable just because it is a school. Wikipedia articles must be verifiable through third-party sources in some manner; this one is not. Without proper sources, this article fails WP:ORG, which schools are required to meet. - SudoGhost 16:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You appear to be mistaking Wikipedia for a bureaucracy. Nothing is required to meet anything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's rather telling when you resort to citing WP:BURO simply because it's pointed out that there are notability requirements; if it's not required to meet the notability requirements then its not required to have an article either, because lets face it, keeping an article just because "others exist and Wikipedia keeps school articles" is part of the bureaucracy: if it's inconvenient for us then it's part of the bureaucracy, right? The fact that this is a college (not a high school) does not mean it is notable just because it exists, nothing is notable just because it exists, notability must be demonstrated, that's not bureaucracy, that's common sense. - SudoGhost 13:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no way this is going to be deleted, there's nothing to get crazy about. The de facto "rule" that all verifiable high schools get kept at AfD would apply with even more force to a college. This is a valid verifiable 24 year old medical school.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no such "rule" though, the only consensus I've been able to find concerning schools is that WP:ORG applies, which this one fails considerably. WP:ITEXISTS is not, and will never be, a valid reason to keep an article, it doesn't matter what the subject is. If this were an article about a construction company, these "the company is real, we keep all kinds of company articles" arguments wouldn't hold any weight whatsoever; that doesn't change just because it's some other subject. There is no consensus that schools just are, the general consensus is that they also have to meet WP:ORG. - SudoGhost 14:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The box above the editing window says "All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements" When what you're saying is textbook WP:ATA and sounds exactly like something a new editor would say when they came to Wikipedia specifically to "vote" to keep an article they were a fan of, I'm inclined to give more credibility to guidelines that have been written and represent community consensus than editors saying WP:ITEXISTS and alluding to some "schools are automatically notable" guideline that doesn't exist. There is a critical difference between "Schools are almost always kept because schools are almost always notable" and "schools are always kept". - SudoGhost 14:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misunderstand. I cited WP:BURO because despite your repetitive claims to the contrary, there are no notability requirements. There are notability guidelines, which are not set in stone, which is why we have AfDs (have you ever stopped to think why we bother, if articles are slavishly required to meet the guidelines?). Consensus has long been that secondary and tertiary educational institutions are notable as long as their existence can be verified. You can argue that WP:IDONTLIKEIT until you're blue in the face (as others have done), but this won't change that consensus or the fact that this AfD is well on its way to being another keep result. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody suggested that the guidelines are set in stone, but articles must be notable in some way. I appreciate that you misused WP:IDONTLIKEIT (did you even read that?) while simultaneously using WP:ITEXISTS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the weight of your argument leaves much to be desired; it would help if you would point out a single thing that reinforced your position, instead of alluding to things that don't exist. If there were some consensus that schools were automatically notable, don't you think someone would have written that down somewhere? Instead, the only thing that is written on the matter is that schools are typically notable, but still follow WP:ORG. - SudoGhost 14:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are truly obsessed with things being written down aren't we? Never mind. Consensus doesn't have to be written down to be consensus and it won't be changed by you continually repeating your lone "delete" or dismissing others' opinions as worthless because they differ from yours. This article will be kept. And let's face it, if it was about a medical college in the UK or USA it would not in a million years even have been nominated for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's generally how a consensus works, yes, it's written on Wikipedia somewhere. If it isn't, there's no such consensus, that's kind of the definition of what a consensus is. Since this is an AfD, please read the top of the editing box, the part about "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements", and provide something to back up your assertion of "schools are automatically notable"; opinions are only "worthless" (thank you for putting that word in my mouth) when they are vague assertions to something that doesn't exist, when what is written on the subject says otherwise. It seems you're misinterpreting "schools are almost always notable" and somehow turning it into "schools are always notable", if that's true, show where this has been said, if you can't, then your argument has very little weight in this discussion, because it's not accurate. Alluding to some consensus that you won't provide makes it hard to know what it says, but I'm pretty sure "schools are always notable" isn't a consensus, and asserting that this consensus is somehow set in stone and we must blindly follow it is not in keeping with your concerns of bureaucracy, especially where there are many guidelines that contradict this "consensus that exists even though it's not actually on Wikipedia anywhere". - SudoGhost 15:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, you misunderstand. Consensus is built up over time, in this case in many, many AfDs. It doesn't have to be written in a single place by a single editor that "this is a consensus". That would be defeating the object of it being a consensus! WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." And as to your snide "welcome to Wikipedia" edit summary, you may like to check out my profile! I've had enough of arguing with you. Wait for the AfD outcome. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It doesn't have to be written in a single place by a single editor that "this is a consensus"" isn't anything that anyone is contesting, but surely there's some evidence of it existing? If not, then I'd trust the community consensus on the matter over your misinterpretation of a vague consensus that you can't actually show any evidence of, especially when what you're saying is contracticted by just about every relevant guideline or policy. As for the "welcome to Wikipedia" edit summary, that was a reference to fact that you don't think a consensus has to be written on Wikipedia? If there's no evidence of a consensus, then you can't allude to it and be taken seriously, that suggests a serious misunderstanding of what a consensus is, and no I'm not suggesting that an uninvolved admin must "close" a discussion and say "yep, this is a consensus", but if you're so keen on citing this mysterious consensus that seems to override every relevant policy or guideline and everything else even when Wikipedia policy says that such a consensus wouldn't override a larger community consensus, it's generally a good idea to at least show that it exists on some level (verifiability on Wikipedia shouldn't be that strange of a concept). I'm also not interested in "checking out your profile", your unsupported statements here speak for themselves, it doesn't matter who makes unsupported assertions, they're still very poor arguments. - SudoGhost 15:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment about verifiability was concerning this magical consensus that can't actually be shown; if you're going to allude to a consensus, it would help to show it existing. "Precedent" also has zero weight in any discussion, for a number of reasons, but also because Wikipedia does not work on precedent on any level. The AfDs are fine in their own discussions, because apparently nobody disagreed with what was being said, but that's not the case here. If you want consensus to reflect that schools are "automatically notable", then discuss it at the relevant guideline and get an actual consensus and have something reflect what you're saying; until then it's your opinion against what policies and guidelines say on the matter, and I'll give fleshed out community consensus more credence than vague assertions to a local consensus somehow being except from WP:CONLIMITED any day. - SudoGhost 16:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said in my comment exactly where this consensus is. I have no wish to engage in further discussion about this because you are obviously unwilling to actually listen to anything that is being explained to you. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I don't see where you said "exactly where this consensus is", only that it was, and the fact that "no article about a verifiable high school or higher education institution being deleted at AfD in the last few years" means absolutely nothing since consensus can change, especially a vague and unclear consensus, the details of which change depending on the time of day and who you ask. What is being "explained to me" is that colleges don't have to follow any policy or guideline and "that's just the way it is", despite the fact that both what is written on the matter of schools and Wikipedia policy on the matter both say otherwise. - SudoGhost 17:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous various consensus on educational institutes.
    SudoGhost, I haven't read all the arguments put by editors in previous AfDs which are referred to here by others as long-stand consensus and also the one i refer to in my keep comment. But when i think on why had such a consensus been formed, the answer that comes to me is that Wikipedia is basically an encyclopedia. All villages are here to stay as they are communities of people, whether small or big or of any type of people. Similarly, educational institutes, small or big, famous or not, having 50 commons students or pouring out Marie Pierre Curies are basically institutes that impart education to people, and that is notable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability has to be established, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but an encyclopedia of notable topics, not everything that exists; that something merely exists is insufficient for a Wikipedia article, it has to matter, and reliable sources show that something matters. Schools are almost always kept because it's happens to be that reliable sources almost always can be given to show notability, but this doesn't turn into "any school is automatically notable". From what I can tell, the "consensus" was at one point that "any school is notable", and that was that. Then the consensus changed, that notability had to be shown, and for that reason most articles on primary schools were deleted, since there were no sources. Then it became "most high schools and colleges are notable, since there are sources for them", from what I'm seeing that is the consensus, not "all high schools and colleges are notable, just because that's what they are". The sources make the notability, that doesn't change for a college just because of some arbitrary designation of "educational business" as opposed to "construction business" or "marketing business", there no consensus that this line of "what the business does" somehow throws all consensus on the matter of notability out the window. If that were the case, then primary schools would be kept as well, but the only thing that does address how the notability of schools is handled specifically points out that the notability guidelines apply to schools as well, and although they are almost always notable, that doesn't mean they are all notable. If the "long-standing consensus" was, as is being suggested, that schools don't have to show notability, why is everything I can find on the subject saying otherwise? - SudoGhost 17:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]
  • So it appears that a few editors believe that there is this "consensus" that they can't actually find, that nullifies actual Wikipedia consensus. There is this line of thought that schools are inherently notable, and thus automatically must be kept on that basis alone. This is, however, contrary to Wikipedia consensus. Even if there were such a consensus, WP:CONLIMITED says that "consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." So pointing to a few previous AfDs about some other schools isn't much of an argument, especially since consensus can change. So what is the larger consensus? WP:ORG specifically mentions schools as a type of organization that falls under its guidelines, and even addresses this "schools are inherently notable" argument by noting in WP:ORGSIG that "no company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is." So it appears that if this "long-standing consensus" did exist, consensus most certainly has changed, since the relevant Wikipedia pages for schools contradict this line of logic. Given that the AfD group notice says that "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements", I think a better reason should be given than "keep because it's a school" or "we have a consensus to keep schools", since relevant guidelines specifically say otherwise. - SudoGhost 18:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "If you can find a similar college ever ever ever deleted at AfD" is the best argument you could make, since WP:ORGSIG says that does not matter. If you can cite a actual reason to keep the article I'll gladly shut up, but I've explained above why "keep because it's a school" is a very poor argument to give, since there is absolutely nothing that supports that argument on any level, as is in fact contradicted by the relevant guidelines. While I appreciate that you believe a wall of text doesn't help my argument (understandable), failing to give a valid reason isn't helping yours, and asserting that "schools don't have to be notable, that's just how it is stop questioning it" is even worse. - SudoGhost 18:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Milowent is right! Stop hounding all commenters. Get a job! Instead of making this AfD your blog had you googled about the subject you would have come to know that the college has produced gold medalists at least for once and at least one professor's research work had been noted internationally. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The personal attacks aren't necessary, and if a single person can point out a single guideline or policy that supports keeping the article I'd happy accept that, but as it stands I'm amazed that quite a few editors truly believe that "schools are automatically notable" is a valid reason to keep an article, when everything on Wikipedia is saying otherwise. Professors doing research comes nowhere near creating notability for the organization. Schools are not automatically notable, it doesn't matter how many editors claim that, it doesn't change the fact that you're arguing against established community consensus. If there is a valid reason to keep the article, I'd love to hear it because I don't want the article to be deleted just because a few editors erroneously believed that WP:ITEXISTS is enough to keep an article, but if that's the only reasoning you can give, then it apparently doesn't belong on Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 12:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Context matters; an article about a person isn't significant coverage for this article, since the Times of India article only mentions this subject once, in passing, which is a trivial mention. A single trivial mention does not warrant an article and comes nowhere close to meeting WP:ORG. - SudoGhost 18:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is that a keep argument for this article? The current guidelines say that this article is not notable by default. Trying to change that is good, but until then the standing consensus says otherwise. - SudoGhost 15:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am utterly opposed to the idea that any topic is inherently notable (including schools). Yes, I would agree that there is a strong presumption that schools are notable (because it is highly likely that sources exist), but the thing about presumptions of notability is that there are rare exceptions. There will be rare cases when a specific school does not live up to the general presumption. So... The question we must ask here in this AFD is: Is (Sri Siddhartha Medical College) one of those rare exceptions? A quick google/google news search tells me it is not. There are more than enough sources that can be used to establish that the subject is notable. That none of these sources are currently used in the article is a flaw with the article (one that needs to be fixed)... but because they could be used, the topic is notable. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re "However, this article still fails WP:ORG" - How so? A quick Google news search turns up several sources that can be used to support notability, per WP:ORG.
I think you may have a misunderstanding about our notability guidelines... WP:ORG (and our other notability guidelines) isn't about the current state of an article... it's about the article's topic. The fact that sources are not currently cited in an article is a flaw, but one that that can easily be fixed if the sources exist. Notability is not determined by whether the article currently contains the required sourcing... it is determined by whether the required sources exist. In this case they do. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at Google, there aren't any reliable sources there that could establish notability. WP:ORG doesn't say "Alluding to some Google search makes an article notable as well." Notability has to be shown, not alluded to without actually showing it. - SudoGhost 17:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No... Deletion/retention is not dependent on whether notability is shown... but whether it can be shown. In this case it can be... for example: [This Times of India article can be used to establish notability (I will go now and add it to the article). Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may not have noticed, but (1) that source is already in the article, (2) has already been discussed in this AfD, and (3) is a trivial mention of the school in passing while discussing a person. That does nothing to establish the notability for the article's subject. - SudoGhost 17:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The times article is not "trivial", a few paragraphs of it discuss the school, though they don't keep repeating the name. It indeed does count towards establishing notability and if you claim it does not one more time I will have you deleted from wikipedia yourself. Thank you.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The college is mentioned once, in passing, and there's nothing useful to extract from the mention. It then immediately goes on to discuss individuals and their political aspects. That is the very definition of trivial coverage. - SudoGhost 17:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (edit conflict) Without enough secondary sources, an article will invariably be written using more primary sources. For an organization, this will likely keep an article as a permanent stub, or turn it into a giant piece of advertising. If none of the media thinks it's worth spending ink to write about the school, then I don't think it should be given a standalone article. It could instead be mentioned in a list of medical schools in Karnataka. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does get press coverage. I don't understand what it all means, but there are many articles talking about school slots, etc., not to mention Kannada language cites which I have no idea what they are saying.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're now claiming that "it does get press coverage", it might help to show that, instead of yet again alluding to something. - SudoGhost 17:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apart from the long-standing consensus on the notability of tertiary institutions (with which I agree), there is sufficient coverage. In addition to the 2 Times of India articles currently in the references, I found:
The article needs substantial copyediting of course, but that's not relevant here. Voceditenore (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure those are all extremely significant coverage, but they certainly look sufficient enough for a stub at the very least. I'm kind of amazed; you've certainly done more than any other editor has done. There are 11 other keep votes, and you're the only one that's actually tried to present some logical and guideline-based reason to keep the article. It's a shame that it took this long for a single person to do that (I'm counting myself here as well) instead of pulling rationales straight out of WP:ATA, but if you didn't have my respect before, you certainly have it now. - SudoGhost 18:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is those Google search links at the top of AFDs miss a lot. I found those by simply removing "Sri" from the search term. The college is often simply called "Siddhartha Medical College". From the 2 Times of India references in the article, I suspect there may be a lot more coverage about its founding in 1989 (apparently a bit of a brouhaha), but articles going that far back aren't available online and would need a trip to the library. Voceditenore (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sure there was coverage in 1989, but please note that I think the 3 sources above refer to Siddhartha Medical College in Vijayawada, not Sri Siddhartha Medical College in Tumkur (near Bangalore. There are indeed press references to the Tumkur facility dropping the "Sri" sometimes, and though this is even more confusing, e.g., [1], I say welcome to the joy and challenge of editing India-related articles, where some of the very most popular articles on Wikipedia are about Indian actors and movies you've never heard of, and they are badly cited.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure whether you can get it translated or not there is enough coverage about this college in Kannada language news paper, for example news about successfull hip joint replacement and some awareness about mental health at the college I could find few more like KPCC [2] president owning this college. --sarvajna (talk) 19:50, 12 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sri_Siddhartha_Medical_College&oldid=1138786903"