Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Engineering and Technology, Ayodhya (2nd nomination)

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 Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Engineering and Technology, Ayodhya[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)

~~Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Advait (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note The nominator above nominated 21 articles for deletion in the space of 21 minutes. Whether the sources in the articles are sufficient or not, that is clearly not enough time to conduct a good-faith WP:BEFORE search, especially not for institutions like this where the coverage is likely to include stuff which is not in English... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian - The page has been nominated by me after due checks after a user asked me to review a list of pages on my talk page. Its is incorrect to assume that they were nominated without verification, I verified the articles first and then nominated as there is nothing notable with these institutes, the pages merely establish institute existence.

~~I hope the other editors would take an independent view considering the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and the references / citation on record. Advait (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
Note Added citation for notability from the reputed available sources. Institute of Engineering and Technology, Ayodhya page must be continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajitkumarpanicker (talk • contribs) 10:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:THREE and don't WP:NOTEBOMB the articles? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is invalid rationale for this college/university. Per WP:UNIN In general, all colleges and universities are de facto notable and should be included on Wikipedia. Polyamorph (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UNIN is an essay that specifically says "the document you are now reading is not a policy or guideline and should not be treated as such." So hopefully the closer ignores your "vote." --Adamant1 (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the essay illustrates why SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an invalid rationale for deletion. The closer should not ignore any !vote on your say so. Polyamorph (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your intentionally misinterpreting things. The guidelines, essays, etc. etc. are pretty clear that most universities are notable. Not all. In the meantime, why would a closer ignore a vote based on the lack of exiting sources when that's literally what this is based on? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not intentionally misinterpreting anything (in general covers most). The nom on the basis of SCHOOLOUTCOMES is invalid (you really agree that delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES i.e. most degree awarding institutions are notable makes any sense whatsoever?), no WP:BEFORE had been performed, and as we now know was performed by a sock of a banned user. Which is all reason enough for procedural keep. Polyamorph (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the problem is that you mass voted speedy keep on every article about universities based on them "in general" being notable without looking to see if they actually where or not in each particular instance. In the meantime you have zero evidence the nominator didn't do the minimum required before they did the nominations. In fact, they were pretty clear in another AfD that they did. Which I'm sure you read and is exactly why I said your intentionally misinterpreting (or in this case misrepresenting) things. The sock thing might be a good post-hoc justification for how you voted, but that's about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I !voted on the basis of an invalid nomination rationale. There is absolutely clear evidence the nominator did not do WP:BEFORE. Please drop this stick. You are not proving anything. Polyamorph (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence? I'd like to change my votes in this users AfDs that I voted in if you have information I don't and it seems like from the research I did that there aren't usable references for any of these. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Nonsense. You haven't even !voted here. Last warning. Drop it or explain to ANI.Polyamorph (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)~~ user changed their comment above.Polyamorph (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After receiving some pushback on my use of an essay in my !vote, I note that my speedy keep is on the basis that the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES rationale is invalid as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (an explanatory supplement to deletion policy) clearly states Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online.. The essay WP:UNIN (not policy) explains this more succinctly. So no valid deletion rationale has been provided by the nom, who appears not to have performed WP:BEFORE (as evidenced by the fact that some previous discussions kept these articles on the basis of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES!). The OP should explain why they decided to obey instructions from an IP user on their talk page to nominate these articles for deletion - this shows at best naivety on the part of the nominator and at worst meatpuppetry. Polyamorph (talk) 08:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator blocked for sock puppetry. Polyamorph (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any usable references about this. In the article or otherwise. What's available only seems to be brief, trivial mentions and (or) primary. So at this point deleting it sounds like the right outcome. I'm more then willing to change my vote keep if someone can provide WP:THREE in-depth secondary sources though. I had thought about voting procedural keep, due to the nominator being a sock puppet, but I rather just deal with the now while it's nominated instead of going through the process of nominating it again. I'd totally go with procedural keep if there was any evidence that it's notable though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. The only coverage I see are basic and routine details on the parent university's website, and education websites which are typically user-generated content. – SD0001 (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. No claim to notability, as others have remarked above. Ifnord (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University. It appears that even a broken clock is right twice a day. It seems to be a part of the parent school and isn't notable on its own. Technically, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does apply here since it describes that subfaculties of a university generally aren't kept unless they're significant. But I doubt the nominee actually understood what they were doing. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University. Not independently notable from the university. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:08, 19 November 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.