Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ College of Engineering And Technology

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 keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 02:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DJ College of Engineering And Technology

[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) 13:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm reading WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES wrong but doesn't IMS Engineering College plainly satisfy point 2 : "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pichpich (talk • contribs) 19:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on if you disregard the first word in that sentence "most" or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 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) 14:31, 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) 07:29, 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) 12:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your leaving out the part of UNIN that says "the document you are now reading is not a policy or guideline and should not be treated as such." --Adamant1 (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the essay to illustrate why the stated and sole rationale provided for deletion SCHOOLOUTCOMES is invalid. Hence speedy keep. Polyamorph (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware. And? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Essays are not policy but can be useful. Regardless the rationale for deletion is invalid because WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES explicitly states that independently accredited degree-awarding colleges and universities are notable. So WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is actually valid rationale for keep, not delete. Polyamorph (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Polyamorph:Like I said elsewhere WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES clearly says "most" independently accredited degree-awarding colleges and universities are notable. In no way does "most colleges and universities are notable" mean "all colleges and universities are defacto notable." In the meantime I'm not personally a fan of "keep because offline sources might exist" arguments. Otherwise we could play that game to get articles about literally everything before the internet kept. Clearly that's not how this works. Nowhere do the guidelines say it is. There's no consensus anywhere that it is..Etc. etc. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

note the "in general" covers "most". In any case, nothing changes the fact that the nom had an invalid rationale (you really think that delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES i.e. most degree awarding institutions are notable makes any sense whatsoever?), had no WP:BEFORE, and now we know was performed by a sock of a banned user, all of which is reason enough for procedural keep. Polyamorph (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator said in another AfD that they did a WP:BEFORE and you have zero evidence that they were lying. So I don't know why your repeating that they didn't do one. In the meantime your free to change your vote to a procedural keep based on them now being found out as a sock, I'll probably do it myself, but them being a sock has nothing to do with how we originally voted, what instigated this discussion, or my last comment. Don't act like it does. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is clear evidence the nom was lying about doing BEFORE. Clear evidence in the fact that some of these AfDs were previously kept on the basis of the very rationale the nom provided. You have crossed the line of WP:BLUDGEON, please stop. Polyamorph (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that have been kept at AfD before can be nominated again. There's zero wrong with doing it and it's not evidence of anything. As far as the accusation of WP:BLUDGEONing goes, I'm not dominating anything. Nor do I care to. I was just interested in what evidence you had that the nominator didn't do a before. Which you could have provided about 5 comments back instead of talking in circles. That's as far as my involvement or interest in this goes though, because I thought I would change my votes in this person's AfDs that I voted in if you had access to sources or information I didn't. That's it. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:12, 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) 08:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry Polyamorph (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any usable references about this. In the meantime, the whole thing Polyamorph said about the nominator not doing a BEFORE made it sounds like references existed, since I don't know how they would know if the nominator did one or not otherwise, but apparently Polyamorph is more concerned with threatening to send me to ANI then they are to provide the evidence they have that this notable. So at this point I have no choice but vote delete. I'm more then willing to change my vote keep if someone can provide WP:THREE in-depth secondary sources about this school though. I guess I could also vote procedural keep due to the nominator being a sock puppet, but my guess is that this article will just be back here in a few weeks and I rather just deal with it now if it's possible to. --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]

Redirect to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. While tainted by a sock trying to game the system and WP:BEFORE was ignored, I see no evidence of notability so the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Frankly, I would have boldly redirected if there was not an ongoing AfD. --Muhandes (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a redirect. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nominated by sockpuppet whose MO is nominating articles for deletion, with no thought to their notability. Nfitz (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, so if I would re-nominate it immediately afterwards, you will change your !vote to delete? Yes, the sockpuppet did not consider notability, but myself and other editors have (and found it lacking). Please judge by the book, not by the cover. --Muhandes (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider it on it's merits. But I wouldn't object to abuse of the process by renomination. Looking quickly just in English, I'm finding media coverage like this. What would I find in Hindi, or possibly Urdu? Nfitz (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this source is enough to establish notability, but at least it is a judgement based on essence. --Muhandes (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was - just that it was quick to find in English. What about in local languages? Nfitz (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an argument "to avoid in deletion discussions" and if we take that away, we have no rationale for deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 15:02, 10 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.