Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghanashyam Hemalata Institute of Technology and Management

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. Weak keep. Sources are probably difficult to find as the main language in the area is Odia and I have no idea how to search for material in Odia script. It is a degree awarding institute. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanashyam Hemalata Institute of Technology and Management

[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)

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

Fails WP:NORG. Typical private engineering and management college. I don't find any trace of coverage in reliable source.

It exists; nothing more than that. ∯WBG^converse 15:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is to be deleted (about which I have as yet no opinion) then so should Ghanashyama Hemalata Institute of Technology and Management, because it about the same topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah;I've noted that. Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 15:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is to be deleted (about which I have as yet no opinion) then so should Ghanashyama Hemalata Institute of Technology and Management, because it about the same topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Delete System and cultural bias aside, there is no press that supports the article. Without that, both articles are simply advertisements and a means to get names into the encyclopedia without having to establish their individual notability. Rhadow (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this is not kept as a separate article then the title should be redirected to List of colleges affiliated to the Biju Patnaik University of Technology, rather than deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could merge some of the info to Biju Patnaik University of Technology#Colleges if there aren't sufficiently strong secondary sources to support the article(s). Dl2000 (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of colleges..... At best, a redirect.∯WBG^converse 09:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MY PREVIOUS APPEAL: DELETEProposed deletion|concern = Their is same wikipedia page related to same subject and topic, might confuse others see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghanashyama_Hemalata_Institute_of_Technology_and_Management also this wikipedia page is less informative then the link provided of above wikipedia article.

NOW MERGE :Agree with Phil Bridger, ∯WBGconverse, Coolabahapple, Dl2000. Rhadow to some extent. I think Ghitm 2008 version should be kept created 2008 , and this older one 2008 should be merged with the 2011 latest one

created 2011, with removing of more advertising like representation of the topic, which i also added without considering the terms of wikipedia so i apologyze for that.
Deleting is not the solution as its been 10 years, the old one and other is 8 years or so, its now a part reference for people searching for this place and it is perfectly displaying in search engine, and it is also getting good amount of visitor every month. This article can be improved by removing content that is against the policy of wikipedia.
Yes, the source is a great concern but why the reporters from forbes, times will visit this private institution ?? I think the souce See SN 33,..... (Bput - this website has good alexa rank 136,089, in India about 100,000, can be trusted) is a good source is sufficient for the existence of this instituition. And this aricle conetent can be reduced to only inform about this place and history.

Summing up,

Merge 2011 in 2008 verson of ghitm article Rocky 734 (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's your relation with the subject? ∯WBG^converse 09:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Winged Blades of Godric: i'am just merely connected it, i know that place because one of my close friend study there.--Rocky 734 (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the two articles. Accredited, degree-awarding institution, which we usually keep. Colleges like this in India are not part of the universities to which they are affiliated. They are separate institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pray, why we keep these? Because, you like them? ∯WBG^converse 09:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's called consensus, established over many years at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow! Another argument without any basis in policy -- that the history of an article (ten years) should protect it from deletion. If it is bad today, it was certainly bad when it was written. There are other communities in WP that use similar arguments, to wit, "I've never seen an article of category deleted. Are you telling me this is the only non-notable instance in the world?" The result is unreferenced detritus that distracts a reader from the quality that is WP. It is not the mission of WP to replicate subject websites and be a scratchpad for original research. The value in WP lies in scrupulously edited articles. The rest are free-riders -- like this one. Merge it or delete it, but get rid of it! Rhadow (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This AfD is messier than ~~(well, I won’t go there)~~ because people can’t stick to the subject to get this thing over with: keep or delete. Irrelevant comments don’t help the cause. What it comes down to is this is not notable. Trillfendi (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think Necrothesp's rationale is correct - it it's an accredited, degree-granting institution, then yes, it should meet our standards. Guettarda (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to WP:SCHOOLRFC. Existence of a degree-granting institution is not an automatic indication of notability. References need to support it, which I believe is a standard not met in this case. Rhadow (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rhadow are you saying this is a secondary school? It appears to be tertiary. Guettarda (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly an institution that teaches to degree level, not a secondary school. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not assert that the subject is a secondary school. I assert that the situation is analogous. An institution that appears on a single list (not a press item that discusses the subject) is not notable. The alternative argument is that every degree-granting tertiary education institution is automatically notable irrespective of WP:NORG, a position with which I disagree. Rhadow (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should make your point without basing it on an RFC that was only about secondary schools. I have to ask this question, because it is the elephant in the room that nobody seems to be noticing, but can you give any example of an accredited tertiary college mainly attended by white people for which anyone has even considered deleting its Wikipedia article? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact -- but I forget the name or outcome -- a university in Southern California went to AfD. Sheesh, you're saying this is a matter of national or racial bias? No. I PRODded this Florida-based accredited university Okan International University. I have no idea who attends. Rhadow (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not accusing anyone of deliberate bias, but whenever a long-standing practice, such as keeping articles on accredited tertiary institutions, is challenged it's by people trying delete articles about Africa or Asia. No individual one of these deletion discussions proves national or racial bias, but the cumulative effect is that we hold articles about topics related to those continents to higher standards than we apply to North American or European topics. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rhadow. Your comment seemed odd, but this makes some sense. I still think tertiary institutions are different though. Guettarda (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Phil Bridger, you assert, "the cumulative effect is that we hold articles about topics related to those continents to higher standards than we apply to North American or European topics." I respectfully disagree. An article about a technical college in Canada or New Zealand based solely on its appearance on a single list would not make it past NPP. Rhadow (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any article about a degree-granting institution in Canada, New Zealand or any other Western English-speaking country ever being deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. However merging duplicate articles about the topic by any editor would not be controversial, requires no further discussion. There seems to be consensus that this is a degree-granting institution, and higher than secondary level. We generally/always keep such. --Doncram (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. There is not even a single independent and reliable source to establish notability. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Both fail WP:CORP. No commentary, just NOTDIRECTORY|directory summary information. Accredited, degree-awarding institutions traditionally would be notable bastions of public learning, but not these days. Degree awarding institutions are little different to predatory profit obsessed businesses. A minimum degree awarding WP:STUB should include a credible independent review of what they do. Open to new sources that might justify a re-creation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2019 (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.