Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usha Rama College of Engineering and Technology (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 delete. — The Earwig (talk) 05:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usha Rama College of Engineering and 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)

Article written entirely based on primary source and has several tags now. Being a higher education institute without having ability to award Degree, fails WP:NSCHOOL. Also for being a for-profit organization it fails NSCHOOL, in which case the rule says "For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria". The WP:BEFORE gave nothing that makes it pass WP:NCORP nor WP:SIGCOV. Chirota (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reference in the article that isn't dead is primary and all I could find about the college when I looked was a bunch of brief, trivial name drops in books and articles about other things. So this college clearly fails the general notability guidelines and the ones for organizations. Plus, it's written like an advert and there's no way to make it not sound like one without in-depth, usable references. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as mentioned in nomination, no significant coverage defcon5 (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Enough rationale per norm. TheChronium (talk) 16:31, 19 April 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.