Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonarpur Mahavidyalaya

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. Sandstein 20:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sonarpur Mahavidyalaya (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)

Article makes no claim of notability and mostly consists of a poorly formatted list of departments. A brief google search didn't turn up any indication that it is notable in anyway. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 21:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Poor article, it's true, but accredited degree-awarding institutions are invariably kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on what policy? Or the classic circular reasoning to keep because things were kept in the past etc. The Banner talk 15:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I deleted the list of departments for now as they weren't sourced to any particular page on the website, and added back the degrees that were affiliated with University of Calcutta as they had a reference that actually listed them. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Where's the WP:NOTABILITY? This article is not even covered with any reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrayonS (talk • contribs) 09:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - I was unable to produce any non-abysmal references for this article after a decently thorough Googling. I suspect that there might some references in local or print media that would be useful. That said, keeping this article hoping that someone goes that deep and dredges them up is eventualist to the point of absurdity, and there is not much worth saving in the article as it sits. Probably notable, but the sources aren't there to verify that... Tazerdadog (talk) 10:50, 22 May 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.