Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bansal Learning

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. Sandstein 08:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bansal Learning

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

Doubtful notability, and completely promotional in nature, to the point where even if notability were demonstrated, WP:TNT would be a better option. Vanamonde (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP and simply promotional. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 14:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:While I cannot comment on the WP:TNT part, Bansal is a known entity in this part of the world.Jupitus Smart 18:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment Too bad form of the nominator to not mention that there has been a previous AFD for this article, which is at Wp:Articles for deletion/Bansal Tutorials. The talk page of this article was deleted erroneously and never restored. My opinion is that we should consider all articles about these Indian coaching institutes together -- they all have basically the same level of notability, are well-known names here in India, and are usually promotional (unless someone has bothered to do a clean-up). Discussing articles individually results in inconsistent outcomes which is not at all helpful. 103.6.159.81 (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- For convenience, here is the list of all AfDs about Indian coaching institutes - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8) - outcome was to keep in each case. A more recent AfD is this where the outcome was delete (though a very rough consensus). 103.6.159.81 (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All promotionalism removed. 103.6.159.81 (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An admin please restore this page's talk page, now that it has only a little chance of being deleted. 103.6.159.81 (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--These instituitions which operates at the 10+2 level are a major part of the education scene in India esp. if one considers the craze for getting into good institutes like Indian Institutes of Technology etc.well documented and well covered in national media and passes WP:GNG].AFD is not cleanup.Winged Blades^Godric 12:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bansal Classes is "known" by many in India, no doubt. However, apart from brief mentions in articles that appear during the JEE results season, it's impossible to find neutral sources that can be used to write a NPOV article on Bansal Classes. I also see many such articles on Wikipedia -- Techno Herald, Resonance Kota, FIITJEE, etc. Whether the arguments presented in WP:NHS ought to be extended to these institutions is something that can be thought about, but as per the current policies, I don't see how this article can be written in a way so as to pass WP:GNG. — Stringy Acid (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are three institutes named Bansal:

Bansal Classes Private Limited - website, founded by Vinod Kumar Bansal, based in Kota, notable - covered in WSJ, Reuters, and also PaGaLGuY (note that all three of these mention the founder)
Bansal Learning Private Limited - website, founder unknown, also based in Kota, non-notable.
Bansal Tutorials Private Limited - website, founded by Dr. T.K. Bansal, based in Delhi, definitely non-notable

The subject of the article we are discussing is uncertain, though it uses the logo of #2. The article mentions the founder as Swati Bansal, but a Google search shows that there doesn't seem to be anyone called Swati Bansal who founded any coaching classes. The subject of this article, at its creation, was actually #3, though it changed over time to #1, because #1 seems to be only that has any sources. In the two previous AfDs, Wp:Articles for deletion/Bansal Tutorials and Wp:Articles for deletion/Bansal Classes, the result was keep/NC only because the keep-voters were looking at the sources of #1.

I note that there existed an article Bansal Classes which mentioned Vinod Kumar Bansal as founder and hence it is explicitly about #1, only that it was recently G11'd. RickinBaltimore, please restore it, the promo stuff can easily be removed/repaired as I did with this article. Its restoration would allow us to decide properly whether to keep this article or that. It has already survived 2 AfDs. 103.6.159.85 (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was promotional in nature, and did not indicate why it was notable. I am not restoring it, and further requests to do so should be done at deletion review. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a promo page on an unremarkable private company. The article fails to establish notability, and the fact that the company specialises in education does not absolve it from meeting Wiki's notability guidelines, such as WP:NORG & WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2017 (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.