Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List College at Alipurduar-II Block

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 redirect to Alipurduar II (community development block). MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List College at Alipurduar-II Block

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

Topic fails WP:GNG; a collection of red links. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That something is presently a redlink has no bearing on whether it should actually have an article. Here I'm not even clear on what the topic is, or is supposed to be, or what this is trying to list. You determined that notability is not satisfied here, maybe if you walked us through how you determined that...? postdlf (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for not expanding my rationale. These are 4 institutions in the community development block of Alipurduar II. I have no prejudice against listing colleges in any city/district in the world; however, does a list like this really comply with the general notability guidelines for lists, since the topic has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources? When their names can simply be stated in the Alipurduar II (community development block) article since we are only talking about 4 of them without expanding at all?(also, I am not sure these are exactly their names, since Google tells me another story [[1]] [[2]]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RetiredDuke (talk • contribs) 18:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - You may be right about the outcome, but I want to make sure we get there through the right analysis. LISTN can be sufficient but not necessary to satisfy notability guidelines. More relevant questions here would look at whether we're listing entries that merit their own articles, and then whether there are enough of them to merit a standalone navigational list as a WP:SPLIT from a parent article. If the answer to either question is no (as would seem to be the case here) then listing them in the parent location article would probably be the way to go. Merging per WP:ATD is not really a deletion issue but rather just one for editing (though here the title of this list would not make a proper redirect), and all of this should really be figured out through a discussion and looking at the whole context of related content, rather than a "keep/delete per WP:SOMEACRONYM" compulsory process. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alipurduar II (community development block). This article seems to be a set with List of Upper Primary Schools at Alipurduar-II Block and List of Primary Schools at Alipurduar-II Block (maybe they should be considered in this AfD as well?) I'd suggest they all be merged back to Alipurduar II (community development block). Ajpolino (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those two articles are only slightly less useless. Also there is nothing useful at all to merge from this one. Ajf773 (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bordering A1 material. Difficult to understand the context of this article (which appears to be a list article of red-links so it doesn't pass WP:LISTN anyhow). Ajf773 (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "...appears to be a list article of red-links so it doesn't pass WP:LISTN anyhow": that's a complete non sequitur. The one has nothing to do with the other. postdlf (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've also nominated the two articles mentioned by Ajpolino. MT Train^Discuss 09:08, 15 January 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.