Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Institutes

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global Institutes[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 satisfy NORG as there are no RS. Created by a SPA. Vikram Vincent 13:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI cannot find any data to show it is a degree awarding institution. Vikram Vincent 14:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article and its website certainly say it is! Why do you think it isn't? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because they are affiliated to a University which awards the degree. These dont have degree awarding powers if I am not mistaken. Vikram Vincent 16:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - By "degree-awarding institution" we mean any college that teaches to degree level, not specifically only those that award their own degrees (this would, for instance, rule out British polytechnics, which did not award their own degrees). This has always been the case. Affiliated colleges still meet the criteria. This status is, of course, particularly common for colleges in India, and many of them have been kept on this basis, forming a rough consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 20:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be suggesting that consensus is irrelevant! Not sure where you got that one from. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! There is even a {{outcomes}} tag to state that :-) If you can find some data to support notability it would be great, Necrothesp. Best! Vikram Vincent 16:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is the whole basis of how we do things on Wikipedia. It is never irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You act like the notability guidelines and them being the standard came from magical fairy dust or something one day and had nothing to do with consensus building. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Vincentvikram is randomly nominating articles without any solid statement. I noticed, he provided almost same reason (Notability and non Reliable Sources) for all articles nominated for deletion. It seems like his edits are not constructive on Wikipedia. DMySon 17:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Does not satisfy NORG as there are no RS. Created by a SPA" seems like a pretty solid statement about why Vincentvikram did this AfD to me. Anyway, even if it wasn't 99% of AfDs are nominated because of a lack of notability and the articles containing non-reliable Sources. So, you must be of the opinion that no AfD is a "constructive edit." --Adamant1 (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of the article and therefore the article itself lack the required reliable in-depth sources need for it to be notable. So, the only thing worth doing here is to do delete the article. Otherwise, the people who disagree can WP:THREE instead of Strawmaning the nominator and I'll be happy to change my vote to keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm not seeing how this organization is notable -- and the third-party, in-depth references are not forthcoming. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:48, 24 March 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.