Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sree Buddha College of Engineering, Elavumthitta

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Buddha College of Engineering, Elavumthitta[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)

~~Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG. Advait (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is only one source and it is not independent of the subject. Bwmdjeff (talk) 00:15, 24 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) 14:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: Maybe the nominator did the research beforehand. Personally, I have a semi-long list of articles I researched ahead of time that I plan to nominate for deletion at some point when I'm not busy. I could see the nominator doing the same thing here. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: At which point I would assume you could have something more convincing as rationales (and having taken care to look whether there is any appropriate alternative to deletion) than mere copy-pasted assertions that something "Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES" or "Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: Sure, but I would assume that instead of copying the same message about the nominator in 21 AfDs you could have given a more convincing rational about why the articles should be kept. If your so against copy-pasted assertions why not lead by example? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because here, unlike the AfD nominator, I am only noticing the exact same issue, which applies equally to all 21 nomination. Note that I at least took the time (maybe I missed a few ones) to highlight where there were obvious alternatives to deletion (redirecting to the parent institution) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you posed alternatives to deletion where there was the option. That said, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG can apply with redirects. I've suggested redirecting plenty of articles that didn't meet GNG myself. So the AfD nominator can still be correct that all 21 articles don't meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:57, 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) 07:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator blocked for sock puppetry. Polyamorph (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 7 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.