Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bachelor of Computer Application

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. A lack of agreement among editors and a lack of policy and/or guideline-based arguments for any specific outcome only leaves this option. Michig (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor of Computer Application

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

May need a major rewrite as the article may not be following Wikipedia standards. This article contains Original Research like "And some students use to do jobs in IT World as a programmer, .... best distance education". The rest of the article appears to be the syllabus of some college.Thought of going for a speedy delete but couldn't decide the criterion. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 20:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confess) @ 20:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Poor quality of the article is not grounds for deletion. The topic is notable and, if possible, the article should be improved. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 I do agree with you on this regard that this is a notable article. So i did not tag this with notability. But this article has ONLY original research.1. The first line describes it and is fine. 2. The course aims at realizing the following student objectives: .... Well this appears to be directly copy pasted from a syllabus and might also be ORIGINAL RESEARCH. 3. After completion of this course, students use to go for higher studies, such as:..... Well how can this be referenced?? Another case of Original research and conclusions. 4. And some students use to do jobs in IT World as a programmer .... Same as point 3. There is no way it can be referenced. Again Original research and conclusions. 5. Eligibility : ..... Again its vague. 6. Bachelor of Computer Application – Course Subjects .... Well you have the syllabus of some college now. Well again case of unverifiable Original Research. 7. References provided = 0 although article was created in 2008.(This will not be the criterion for deletion).

So I don't think its a poor article. Its a completely botched up article which needs a COMPLETE RE-WRITE. So i tagged this article as a case of WP:OR.Lakun.patra (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move from advice to nominating editor User:Lakun.patra to a formal warning with possibility of a block. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk page.Lakun.patra (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is in a very poor condition. a) I was thinking to CSD the article for copyvio. The "aims" seem be be copied from here, syllabus section looks like a direct copy-paste too. I agreed with others that poor quality of the article is not a reason to delete, the copyvio is a reason to do so. I have checked article's old versions. We may need to rev-del many version and edits. So, I suggest to WP:TNT and restart it with the first line "Bachelor of Computer Applications is a 3 years under-graduate degree course. . ." --Tito☸Dutta 03:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into new article List of master's degrees in India (thereby mirroring the North America article); existing article is merely a coat-hanger for "top" university spam down at the bottom. Same should be down with the other linked articles within this one.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remove non-sourced information. (which would be all of it, I guess...) Piboy51 (talk) 20:41, 15 January 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.