Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunder Deep Group of Institutions

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. Despite having ben relisted twice, there is no clear consensus for either "keep" or "delete". Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunder Deep Group of Institutions

[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)

Not notable and no reliable sources present. Vikram Vincent 13:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I cannot find any data to show it is a degree awarding institution. Vikram Vincent 14:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article and its website certainly say it is! There's a long list of degrees in the article. Why do you think it isn't? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Necrothesp I think you are voting without reading anything written. The article clearly states, It is affiliated to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University and Chaudhary Charan Singh University. I would suggest that you please verify the fact before voting as you are stating a non-existant point as if it were a fact. Vikram Vincent 16:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I can assure you that I am not. By "degree-awarding institution" we mean any college that teaches to degree level, not specifically only those that award their own degrees (this would, for instance, rule out British polytechnics, which did not award their own degrees). This has always been the case. Affiliated colleges still meet the criteria. This status is, of course, particularly common for colleges in India, and many of them have been kept on this basis. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you please link that guidelines which equates "degree-awarding" to "teaching at degree level". In India, we actually have private institutions which *do* award degrees and these are called private deemed universities. This and other AFDs you have been !voting on do not come under that category. Vikram Vincent 16:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        As I have said, this is consensus and has been applied many times. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 19:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be suggesting that consensus is irrelevant! Not sure where you got that one from. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{outcomes}} tag :-) Vikram Vincent 14:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is never irrelevant. It's the whole basis of how we do things on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just glancing over the nominations of this type by Vincentvikram so far, I think we are at two or three closed and all of them have closed as delete. There's been several other nominations of the same type by other users in the past couple of days that have closed as delete also. So, that sounds like a clear consensus that 1. Sourcing matters 2. Your opinion that it doesn't is not the consensus. And that's just in like the last week with the ones I've been paying attention to. I'm sure you will discount those as not being consensus based outcomes though for some reason, just like you have the guidelines and RfC, and continue to dig your heals into the notion that your correct because "experience" and "how things were done 10 years ago" Etc. Etc. In the meantime, the current facts of the matter are clearly against your "experience" and you cut and pasting the same keep message everywhere isn't effective. So why not just skip it and provide a couple of reliable in-depth sources so these articles can be legitimately kept instead? I'm more then willing to change my vote to keep if anyone does. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Vincentvikram is randomly nominating articles without any solid statement. I noticed, he provided almost same reason (Notability and non Reliable Sources) for all articles nominated for deletion. It seems like his edits are not constructive on Wikipedia. DMySon 17:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Article seems to be non-notable without the presence of any reliable source. Pranhita (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Degree awarded institute which is affiliated with a recognized university Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. Here is my argument for similar institutions. DMySon 18:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The wiki link leads to an argument for wp:other stuff exists which is a good reason to delete rather than keep. Vikram Vincent 10:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Private colleges have to be notable like any other private organization. They don't get a special pass when it comes to notability just for being "degree awarding" or whatever. In this case, there is not enough adequate sourcing for the article to be notable enough to warrant keeping it. Period. Otherwise, if someone wants to provide WP:THREE good sources that follow the relevant guidelines I'm happy to change my vote to keep. I couldn't find any myself though and I haven't seen anyone who thinks the article should be kept provide any either. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:19, 28 March 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.