Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deggendorf 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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deggendorf Institute of Technology[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. Just removed a large amount of text that read like a promotional brochure added by an employee; even the rest of it reads that way. It's been marked as an advertisement and needng sources since 2013. I could only find websites related to enrolling in the institute. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While previous versions may have been problematic, the subject certainly seems notable to me, due to coverage in many sources. I added a couple to the article, but you can find much more searching in German. None of them reveal anything particularly special about this local higher education institute, but they all clearly constitute independent coverage in reliable sources specifically about the subject. wikitigresito (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it does not meet WP:GNG Or WP:NCORP -It clearly does not have sufficient independent coverage to meet WP:NCORP or even the WP:GNG. That it is being used by a company representative to make important updates is a side issue. Some PAID editors do good work. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra I agree, just noting that's how I got here. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you consider the sources that I added? There are multiple articles from Bayrischer Rundfunk, clearly an independent, high quality source. Kindly also note that this is a government institution and not a company. wikitigresito (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't draw a distinction between public and private entities. They both must still meet WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it does not make a difference if it is public or private. What makes a difference is that the subject clearly meets GNG. Could you kindly explain on what grounds you dispute the independent, reliable sources that I added to the article? wikitigresito (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You made a point of mentioning that this was a government institution. In any event, the sources you added are not significant coverage of the subject, and only cite routine information. It does not contribute to notability to cite a statement that this institution has constructed buildings on campus. All universities or colleges do that. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether activities are "routine" or not for an institution does not determine whether coverage on them is significant according to our guidelines or not. Coverage on the performance of a piano player does not become insignificant, just because all piano players give performances. Please also not that these two articles are just few of many more. Consider, for example, the following: 1) (major national newspaper, exclusively about the campus), 2) (local newspaper, research and university-industry linkages project), 3) (local newspaper), 4) (local newspaper, long article on the school's sports teams), 5) (long interview related to music festival hosted by students) 6) (looks short, but full article behind paywall, local newspaper on history of the institution), 7) (national newspaper, exlusively on new study programme at the school), 8) (local newspaper, Chinese delegation visiting). wikitigresito (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my opinion, but appreciate hearing yours. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dpes not meet the notability standards for organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is still presumed notable, since it meets WP:GNG and is not excluded under WP:NOT. wikitigresito (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. Plenty of sourcing, as with any tertiary institution in Western Europe. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article isnt very good, but universities are notable. Rathfelder (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rathfelder Universities are no longer presumed notable just because they exist, they must meet WP:ORG just like any other organization. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must be confusing secondary schools (which are no longer automatically presumed notable) with universities (which are). Nothing whatsoever has changed as far as presumption of notability for universities is concerned. Long precedent is to keep all accredited universities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp Respectfully, that's not how I read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which says "The current notability guidelines for schools and other education institutions are Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG)." It goes on to say that most accredited universities may have enough coverage to meet WP:ORG, not that the mere existence of the institution is sufficient. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that Universities are no longer presumed notable suggested that you thought universities were covered by the RfC (which actually, of course, quite specifically only covered secondary schools, but which some editors seem to believe has crept out to cover all educational institutions). In reality, the presumption of notability for universities and the consensus at AfD that they are notable has not changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, there is no super-notability criteria for universities, as far as I am aware, they must still meet WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you're aware, consensus at AfD is important. Consensus is that universities are notable. I don't recall any degree-level European higher education institution ever being deleted at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the article does nothing other than state that the institution exists and names its offerings? I'd be interested in seeing where that consensus was established. If so, then SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be changed to match, because it currently states as I note above. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of independent in-depth coverage, e.g., Süddeutsche Zeitung. 15 (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The profile in Süddeutsche Zeitung clearly constitutes more than routine coverage. Attention by a newspaper of this standing usually points to the existence of a plethora of solid local coverage. Yes, some of it does not rise to the level of secondary coverage but the articles in Idowa are substantial and promise more in-depth coverage behind a paywall (which should not be rejected per WP:SOURCEACCESS). This institution, like most other universities, meets WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2021 (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.