Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GIK Institute Clock Tower

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 - Without prejudice to an early renomination in case significant coverage is not provided in due course. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GIK Institute Clock Tower

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

Article does not cite RS. The editor who contested my PROD argues that "real places and landmarks are notable", even though the subject fails GNG and the WP:GEOFEAT criteria. AfD it is then. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article does not fail WP:GEOFEAT. It is notable as per WP:GEOFEAT#3 (which further states notability per GNG). The nominator also seems to lack policy related knowledge to much extent given that in violation of WP:PROD lede, he reverted a prod template back in [1] (telling me to wait till an admin decides to delete it? That's something for CSDs and that too for only the creator of an article). Coming back to the article, the subject is a real world land mark and wikipedia also acts as a guide for real places and keeps all articles related to real places, landmarks, roads, bridges etc as per WP:GEOFEAT#3. All real places are notable anyway. Just to further add in case the nom decides to object the place's existence [2]. Google Books search also seems to have 17 results and 79 results for two different queries. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I hope this thread compensates my lack of knowledge. wikipedia also acts as a guide for real places and keeps all articles related to real places, landmarks, roads, bridges etc → No, we go by RS to confirm notability, and Wikivoyage is more appropriate for such things. Otherwise, we may all create articles about every "landmark" that is located two blocks away from our residence.

Your Google results are also very likely invalid, as apparently you have not checked the books in question. From the 79 results, only four are possibly relevant ([3], [4], [5] and [6]) but they are all inaccessible and three of them are clearly based on Wikipedia. The rest mainly consists of unrelated stuff like this, this, this and this among many others, which don't contain the word "GIK" or even "clock tower". Only two of the results mention a clock tower ([7] and [8]), but these don't seem to be linked to the GIK Institute.

Same thing goes for the 17 results. Stuff like this, this, this, this and this hardly mention this building. Four books ([9], [10], [11] and [12]) are inaccessible, but I find it very very unlikely that they mention the subject at hand, considering the fact that TopGun did not manage to show me one RS (only a primary source and Wikipedia, somehow). So no, NickCT, I don't even see "moderate coverage" in RS. I need someone who has access to these. How do I know they don't refer to Ghulam Ishaq Khan, the 7th president of Pakistan, or to someone named Ghulam? Can someone confirm all of this, please? Regards, Fitzcarmalan (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is not the same as access, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Secondly, I am not talking about including every insignificant landmark such as a billboard around the corner that wouldn't even make sense; but as WP:GEOFEAT says, if it is an artificial feature that is built upon a notable landmark, it can have its separate article. So no, we can't remove it just because it is a 'landmark'. So we're not talking about being wikivoyage here. Furthermore see WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PRIMARY... the first link I gave satisfies both on top of core relation to WP:NHS in context of WP:GEOFEAT. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are misquoting WP policies. NHS is about the high school itself (not a structure within it), and as it goes, there is obviously a lack of evidence that enough (or any) independent reliable sources exist to justify independent notability (see WP:NHS#Finding_sources). Also, nothing in GEOFEAT says that an artificial structure built upon a notable landmark merits a separate article (don't know where you got that from). The 3rd criteria which you initially referred to talks about infrastructure (...?). Even the opening sentence in GEOFEAT states that: Many artificial geographical features may be mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but they may not necessarily be notable. The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability. Let alone this "clock tower". Your very own arguments prove that it should be deleted, redirected or merged if anything. As for the accessibility part: per WP:SOURCEACCESS I did not reject the sources, and I did ask for help verifying the content, no? Considering that none of the other sources mention this tower, it would be ridiculous to think that these would. It is most likely that the few remaining unchecked books (4 out of 90+) mention the given name "Ghulam", not the building in question. Furthermore, the 5th criteria of self-published sources states that an article should not be based primarily on such sources, which is clearly the case here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see me quoting that this article should be kept per NHS? I said it is strongly relevant to NHS as it is a landmark in relation to a major university. For your the second point, read WP:GEOFEAT#3. Without prejudice, your comment implied disregarding simply because you couldn't access the sources which is why I pointed you to the source access policy as a precaution. I'm not limiting the article to only a primary source either rather implying the two facts that notability of the landmark with the primary source proving its existence as well as giving enough to cover in the article calls for a clean up and probably adding more sources, not an AFD. I would appreciate if my comments are taken as pointers to the my keep comment and not as to dragging you into a two person debate repeating the same claims, as I presume the closer and the commenting editors to be sensible enough to get our abundantly clear positions. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did read GEOFEAT#3, but apparently you didn't read what I said about it being invalid in your argument. I don't think your comments are pointers to your keep !vote. Quite the contrary, they point further to deletion. Unfortunately we are dealing with AfD now. The article has been given enough time to add sources, and through my search I didn't see any RS around the corner or any significant coverage to merit inclusion on the encyclopedia. There is no reason to keep crap on WP while we have it on sight. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm seeing a moderate of coverage in RS. At first glance it seems it would pass WP:GNG. For the record, as User:TopGun mentioned, the nominator's revision of PROD template removal was improper per WP:PROD. NickCT (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article with the university website reference and added another reference which makes reference to the clock tower twice in a university related incident and hence further verifying the name (although the university website is an RS to verify the structure name, this can be taken as a notability pointer to establish it further). Also wanted to demonstrate that sources in WP:PAK topic areaa are usually not found with just simple google searches, at times not found even online while they are by definition notable with much offline RS coverage yet there are significant search results for this one. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't. I will re-quote GEOFEAT: Many artificial geographical features may be mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but they may not necessarily be notable. The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability. Because something is verifiable and exists does not automatically make it suitable for having an article of its own. How does a trivial mention of this building in one source not qualify as a WP:TRIVCOV case? Once notability has been established, some of these sources may be useful in verifying additional information, but they should not be used as a reason why the subject is notable. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are no true scottsman fallacies. First the implication that there's no reference for it, then that it's not enough. And then you specifically said, I did not manage to show you even one independent source, so I went ahead and brought one up with a few minutes effort to disprove what you want to imply with such comments as well as demonstrate the facts mentioned in my comment above with which I rest my case as far as this update goes since I have given rationale for keep on a separate basis and this reference on top of that rather than basing my entire argument on it. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, you did not come up with the relevant sources. One of the rationales of this nom was GEOFEAT, so I am pretty much aware that even if the subject is mentioned by some RS, notability is still required in order to establish a WP article about it (also see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). So no, the fallacy you are referring to does not apply with me. Please address the concerns that I've raised so far and assume good faith in my intentions. It is not required that the source be mainly focused on the subject. It just shouldn't be a trivial mention of it, and should have sufficient content to write an article about it on WP, which is clearly not the case here. There is still some time to find more, so try to benefit from the AfD as much as possible. I am also aware that AfD is not for cleanup, but this simply does not meet GNG to me. Keep in mind that I would never reject a decent counterargument backed by good evidence. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I've given multiple rationale for the keep. It is your right to disagree with them all if you wish, but other editors seem to concur and I wonder why such a non controversial topic just became grounds for a heated debate; WP:WIN approach should be avoided here. I do assume good faith which is why I do not call it disruptive, rather just lack of policy related knowledge. Just to point out, WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not for landmarks and real places, it makes no mention of such... rather it is for statistics, source codes, software updates. lyrics, fiction etc. Infact, this is not even about 'data' as that section states. It is contextual information and WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not even appear to counter any of my arguments though you want to put a local point of reference (as Mar4d describes) through the same scrutiny as if it was my fictional work. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still fail to convince me with your rationale, unfortunately. The campus is notable and this particular building exists, but the latter is only notable as far as your source goes: a mention. It should be merged if anything. But keeping it as a separate article on the basis that the campus is notable is just erroneous and undermines the credibility of this project. When I PRODED the article, I simply forgot that I wasn't dealing with CSD, so take my policy-related knowledge to a relevant noticeboard. I am not trying to make a point here, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE was simply a side note, but one can't deny that it is very relevant in this context as it is based entirely on notability and I've seen before articles on AfD deleted per arguments referring to this policy among others, and they weren't statistics, source codes, lyrics, etc (which appear to be merely examples). As I've said below, you can look for sources in other languages for this article to meet GNG. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even for CSD, I did not create the article and your logic does not apply. I never took it to a noticeboard as a behavioural issue on that threshold and make a drama out of it, mentioning it in my comment again was a reply to your asking of me assuming good faith so don't know why the prod is coming up again. I am only surprised that you are making it this contentious when it is just a university and town clock tower. Anyway, I agree that I can not convince you inspite of my good faith efforts, policy links and justifications - I do not wish to change your !vote, rather do my share in forming consensus regardless as that's the best way in avoiding contention and preventing this discussion from being difficult to navigate for the uninvolved. You did make it clear that you wanted to apply WP:INDISCRIMINATE but is something different and the link makes its own clarifications... it might be a good idea to use discretion in learning from others' comments if you saw some one else incorrectly do it. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am only surprised that you are making it this contentious when it is just a university and town clock tower → The university is fine; the clock tower isn't. Simple as that. This is only one crappy article among many others around here, and tolerating more and more of this is quite dangerous to the project, really. AGF was only put as a reminder because of the strange assumptions that you have made (Your arguments are no true scottsman fallacies., you are making it this contentious). I am not trying to make this controversial, but the mere existence of this as a stand-alone article is just baffling and controversial in itself. Once again, I only linked INDISCRIMINATE as a side note (check again), and it is still relevant whether it particularly applies here or not, since it is based on WP:N. Please do not put words in my mouth. And I also don't know why you brought up OTHERSTUFF. This primarily applies to the nature of of the article, not to that of the AfD discussion. In fact, OTHERSTUFF should be used as a reminder to editors who may resort to "countering systemic bias" as a pretext for this to be kept. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a notable university and local landmark, and the fact that it is the tallest structure in the campus and for much of the surrounding regions. Because the campus is based in a rural area, it may be systematic bias to just consider sources in English. Perhaps there would be better coverage found in local Urdu and Pashto sources. Mar4d (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most popular !vote on AfD indeed. If there are reliable Urdu or Pashto sources, please add them to the article. But saying that this should be kept under the guise of "countering systemic bias" is just ridiculous and ignores the issues that have been brought up. I assure you that I would have done the same thing with a similar tower located in Europe or the US whenever it meets the deletion criteria. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that was the core rationale presented there. Taking taking a further advice and refuting it under the assumption of core argument is another fallacy and acts as moving the goal posts. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being a monument and a real place, per WP:GEOFEAT. Fai zan 12:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More and more policy misquotings (kindly see the above arguments). And do remember that !votes are no substitute for discussion. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of WP:AGF also includes not blaming every one who disagrees with you of misquoting policies, given the mere number of editors who are reasoning to keep, I guess WP:STICK applies. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The content seems thin but there's an obvious alternative to deletion — merger into the main article about the campus. We prefer to avoid deletion in such cases per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with either a merger or a redirect. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The university article is going to grow and this eventually will be split back per WP:MOS as a child article again. A pointless exercise merging only based on the logic of (current) thin content that is bound to grow and with no disagreement in atleast the university article. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is really pointless is to bring up such unlikely scenario as an excuse to keep a redundant article like that. There are no size-related issues yet, and even if there were, this is not the kind of content that would be split. Better and more legit candidates could be Faculties of the Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology, List of alumni of the Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology, etc. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into parent article "Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology".Saadkhan12345 (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has notability in the region. SAMI ^talk 21:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I am against the merge proposal too. Fai zan 17:04, 12 December 2014 (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.