Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AAFT University of Media and Arts


 * 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. It looks like most of the editors who initially favored retention have withdrawn their support for the page. Consensus is now clearly against retention. There's not really much to merge. But if someone wants to add a couple sentences with appropriate RS citation to Asian Academy of Film & Television, go for it. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

AAFT University of Media and Arts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails ORG, GNG, CORPDEPTH and appears to be WP:TOOSOON because it is very recently established or may not exist just yet - it's hard to tell. No independent reliable sources cover this topic. Notability is not inherited (from a popular film and media personality as is the Chancellor of this school). Steve Quinn (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep It has significant internet coverage and is clearly notable but I think that we need a different editor to add references and content. Ivor Browning (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * striked out sock. See Sockpuppet investigations/J.K.McBrine. or Sockpuppet investigations/Ivor Browning. — usernamekiran (talk)  06:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please post the significant independent reliable sources that have been discovered - here or in the article. As far as I can tell, there is no independent reliable sourcing on the internet for this topic. The main coverage seems to be published by this organization about itself - this is not independent third-party sourcing. Sorry. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I apologise for the follow ups, and pings — usernamekiran (talk)   18:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Asian Academy of Film & Television until it actually exists. Pam  D  07:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep : the Gazette source now added makes it clear that the institution exists, though its website is absurdly promotional and makes unlikely claims. But as a verifiable higher education institution, it is notable. Pam  D  20:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * you said it yourself. The website is absurdly promotional, and makes illogical claims. The subject fails WP:ORG, as well as WP:GNG. Kindly see WP:NSCHOOL regarding that. Also, after the RfC, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES clearly states "an institute is not notable only because it exists." — usernamekiran (talk)  23:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @: Hi. I am not trying to hound/single out, bludgeon or attack you; but I still couldn't find any evidence of that university going operational. Like said in a combined reply to us below: i dont think a private, for profit university should have an article on enwiki when it is only approved for operation, but is not operational yet.
 * On third thoughts, back to Merge to Asian Academy of Film & Television. This new body has been approved by the UGC, and it gets a link from the parent body's website, though doesn't seem to be mentioned in any text there. I think a sentence about it could usefully be added to that article, and this title redirected there. Pam  D  21:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * delete I would have gone for a redirect too; but it is a private, for profit organisation that we cant even be sure exists. It fails all the criteria mentioned by the nominator. I cant see any reason for keeping the article or the redirect. — usernamekiran (talk)  05:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * update to original rationale: after the discussion here, and my searches; i believe the "university" fails WP:GNG, as it lacks significant coverage. As discussed, and concluded below; it is clear that the parent organisation of the university got permission to go operational. But we have no verifiable proofs in reliable sources of the university going operational. This further fails the "coverage" part (there is no coverage stating "university has gone operational" or "university will go operational" or "university is shelved"). This shows lack of coverage, and lack of noatability. As long as it cant be verified through RS that the university is not operational, it fails the bedrock policy of wikipedia: verifiability. As long as its operational status is not verified, WP:GNG applies, and the subject fails it. So its still a delete from me. — usernamekiran (talk)  08:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The UGC "State-wise List of Private Universities as on 12.11.2018", currently ref 1, is an independent verification that something of this name was "notified", whatever that means, on 17 April 2018. Pam  D  08:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. I have been getting a "server timed out" error for that pdf file. But from your comment, I am guessing the college's application for starting the "business" was approved by the UGC. But it wouldn't mean that the subject has gone operational or came into existence. Or it might even have been notified of something, due which the application was put on hold. — usernamekiran (talk)  12:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In India, a university cannot operate until a legislative assembly passes an Act, which is notified in the Gazette. Once this happens, the UGC recognises the institute and adds it to its lists. In my opinion there is no question of official recognition and legitimacy, although there is a question whether operation has started. --Muhandes (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I am the creator of this stub so I may not be impartial. It has been customary to start articles for education institutes in India once two requirements were met. The first is UGC recognition, which in itself follows an Act of a legislative assembly. This requirement has been met. The second is some media presence showing that the institute had opened or is about to open. At the time, I thought having a campus along with a claim for being awarded "Best Media Arts Institute in India" by ASSOCHAM and a claim for being rated "Top University of India" in the Media and Arts sector by Competition Success Review (both of which are notable organizations) is sufficient. Since the actual sources for these images are primary I did not add them to the article, but I still think the general notion holds, and the institute is upcoming, if not already operational. The fact that no independent sources exists is a hindrance for sure, so I would accept that this might still be WP:TOOSOON. If this occurs, it can surely be merged into Asian Academy of Film & Television almost in its entirety. --Muhandes (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Muhandes (talk • contribs)  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * It does seem a little strange that an entity which hasn't started to operate yet can be rated "top university of India". Similary the statistics it quotes on its website seem curious for a place which can't yet have any graduates let alone a "17,000 alumni network" and "10th in world ranking".  Pam  D  15:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say the institute is self promotional, and we shouldnt keep articles of such organisations, especially if it would confuse our readers. — usernamekiran (talk)  18:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you both that this is most likely false advertising, or at the very least misleading, but my conclusion is the opposite. Our best course of action in this case is to counter the false advertising with an impartial and well sourced article. There aren't many independent sources at this time, so the article only states what is clear - that this is an upcoming institute, which was approved by the government, and is yet to operate. The only question is notability, which I agree is borderline, but tends towards positive. --Muhandes (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment None of the above sources demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia's criteria. The Gazette is not is not significant coverage and does not appear to be a reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards. And, a poster-like webpage claiming "Best Media & Arts Institute" on the AAFT.EDu website is a primary source published by the University and not independent significant coverage - in fact it is a slide (like Microsoft Powerpoint) - look at the URL.
 * Next, a statewide list of universities is merely passing mention and is not significant, in-depth, independent coverage. Then, a campus tour via this University's website is a primary source, produced by this University. Finally, a Power Point slide residing on this University's URL, claiming to be rated "top University" is a primary source, and not a reliable secondary or third-hand source, independent of the subject. Also, there is nothing in this discussion that has clearly shown that University even exists right now. It seems to have been a back forth between participants. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: When commenting be pithy. Be concise. Cite policies or guidelines if possible. Confine your comments to what is germane to the discussion and be brief. Above all, be brief!

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not meet WP:NSCHOOL, WP:ORG or WP:GNG - has not "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" - not notable, therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.