Talk:Schools of Planning and Architecture

Review comments
I am trying to perform some cleanup. Some questions/comments:


 * The first sentence states that the schools are 'autonomous' but the second paragraph states that they are governed by the federal government. This appears contradictory.
 * Are these three campuses of the same school, or three separate schools?
 * Rewrote the recognition section per WP:NOTADVERTISING. This section really needs a citation regarding the reasons for success, or otherwise those should not be discussed in that section. There is a higher bar for mentioning things that might be considered promotional. 74.110.27.89 (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Revert to dab page
The entity "Schools of Planning and Architecture" does not exist. School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi was established in 1941, and renamed "School of Planning and Architecture" in 1959. The other two schools were created in 2008, maybe based on similar vision, but with no administrative connection. This is not case of IITs or NITs which have enough in common for an article. In addition, the article which was created was mostly a copypaste of existing articles (e.g. the history section was taken verbatim from School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi). Some of the information was blatantly wrong. For instance, the organizational structure presented was, again, the one for School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi. --Muhandes (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. If you want to go this direction, please place notices on the talk page of the creator and the three school pages. If no one objects over a couple of days, we'll make it a WP:DAB. LaTeeDa (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I don't think there is a need to "make it a WP:DAB", it was a DAB already. The IP, which quite obviously is, went bold and changed it into the article he had at AfC, which has the problems I listed above. I reverted that change from same reasons. Per WP:BRD, the IP/Parik92 now needs to discuss the change, not the reverting party. --Muhandes (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)