Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bajaj Institute of Technology Wardha


 * 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Bajaj Institute of Technology Wardha

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not satisfy WP:schooloutcomes or WP:nschool or wp:org. The references are not WP:RS. Vikram Vincent 15:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also a case of WP:TOOSOON. Vikram Vincent 17:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacking WP:RS, failing WP:NSCHOOL. -- Gpkp  [ u • t • c ] 16:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep– I have added few more sources that I found online. I remember reading about this institute several times in newspapers. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says we should consider the fact that offline news may exist before proposing for deletion.Aishaa14 (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * general note: Aishaa14 is the creator of the article. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states educational institutes have to pass either general notability criteria, or notability guidelines for organisations. The subject fails both. All the sources provided, including recently, are listings/yellow pages/press releases. They do not establish notability. The keep arguement above states that SCHOOLOUTCOMES says we should consider the fact that offline news may exist before proposing for deletion. Actually, SCHOOLOUTCOMES states References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD. It talks about references like books, journals, and similar stuff. Even if we include news, according to the article, [the college] afer getting approvals from AICTE in 2017-18, academic sessions were started. Even if it was covered in news, it wouldnt be difficult to find these news online. SCHOOLOUTCOMES also says we should avoid bringing up SCHOOLOUTCOMES during AfD. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's a school. Not every school deserves a Wikipedia page, and there is nothing notable about this one.  See WP:NSCHOOL. Ira Leviton (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable and fails GNG. Agree with Kichu🐘 Discuss 01:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete not even close to meeting our minimum guidelines for having an article on anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution, so most certainly satisfies WP:Schooloutcomes, which is merely a reflection of existing consensus as to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Degree awarded institute which is affiliated with a recognized university. This is no worse than the many hundred similar articles on colleges in India and elsewhere ( I know this is a very weak argument---what we ought to do is deal with the other similar articles also, but I see no point in singling this one out).  D My Son  17:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This argument sounds like Other stuff exists Vikram Vincent 19:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSCHOOL. - 𓋹 𝓩𝓲𝓪𝓭 𝓡𝓪𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓭 𓋹 [user |  talk] 15:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete prior consensus and the guidelines are pretty clear that private schools have to follow the same notability guidelines as any other type of organization and therefore do not get a special pass from things like WP:NORG. Which, as a private organization, this college clearly fails. Otherwise, the people who think the article should be kept are free to provide WP:THREE usable, in-depth, independent sources and I will be happy to change my vote to keep. In the meantime though, I haven't found any and no one has bothered to provide them. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Go  Phightins  !  11:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, and fails criteria 3 of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES because the article fails WP:ORG. Editors who haven't read SCHOOLOUTCOMES in awhile, will be surprised to see that the language of that policy changed after an RFC in 2017.4meter4 (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. After the rubbish was removed from the article it is essentially a WP:1S. Fails WP:ORG. Kolma8 (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2021 (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.