Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamiah Islamiah Talimuddin Dabhel

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 no consensus. After two relistings, no consensus has formed herein. Closing with the option of WP:NPASR, per lack of adequate input here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamiah Islamiah Talimuddin Dabhel[edit]

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

non notable school of Islamists. If we started giving article space to every islamist school there will be almost 1 thousand articles created every day for the next ten years FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Institute is more than 100 year old and has 1000 students. Seems notable.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 21:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The outcome of this AFD will hinge on whether this institution is shown to be an "independently accredited degree-awarding institutions" or not and whether "independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists" (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). Alternatively, if those criteria aren't met but other criteria in WP:CORP or WP:GNG are met, then the page will probably be kept. As examples of a type of college in the United States which, at least as of 5-8 years ago (my wiki-history is very dated here), could fail at AFD due to lack of accreditation were: 1) Bible colleges, if their accreditation was from only one church/denomination/sect and their credentials were not recognized as "degrees" by any government or other recognized accrediting agency, 2) schools, including graduate schools, that only offered certificates and diplomas but not actual degrees, and 3) all-but-unknown-outside-their-locality community- and junior-colleges that were part of a larger system, such as a county-wide or regional community-college system, provided those schools didn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG in their own right (ironically, high schools had an easier time fighting off a "result: redirect" than non-independent associate-degree-only community colleges, mainly because they had sports teams). Having said that, unless the school has been exceedingly obscure for the past 100 years given its present size, it is unlikely, but not WP:SNOW-unlikely, that this institution will fail to meet WP:GNG even if it fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for some reason or another such as lack of being an "independently accredited degree-awarding institution". davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending evidence from independent, reliable sources that this school meets either WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:CORP, WP:GNG, or any other relevant notability guideline. Being "100 years old with 1000 students" is highly suggestive that such sources exist, but not conclusive enough for a "free pass" on finding them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2015 (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.