Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central College of Vocational Training Pvt. Ltd


 * 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. North America1000 07:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Central College of Vocational Training Pvt. Ltd

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All the signs of a WP:UPE spam. No signs of notability. Note that it's not a WP:NSCHOOL, it's a WP:COMPANY. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hy usedtobecool, I am new at wikipedia. So i don't know most of the policies but i am understanding at day by day and making some edits and artciles, Recently I had write about central college of vocational training pvt ltd, can you elaborate why this is under review for deletion. although it has strong citation and artciles, similarly i had seen kiec artcile but it has no issue but artcile about central college is same as it but why? can you please explain me about this so that i can make some edits and make it wiki friendly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSaugatDevkota (talk • contribs) 05:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * do you have evidence that KIEC was created in return for undisclosed payments? I haven't looked at the article, so I can't say if it's certainly worthy of deletion, but that you mention it, it does look like WP:CORPSPAM The article, that is the subject of this discussion, does not have "strong citation"s. If Wikipedia articles supported by a few internet startup "news websites" with 1-3 "editors" and no journalistic credential were to be accepted, every company on earth would just setup three random websites to get itself on Wikipedia. No, we need reputable reliable sources that have significant coverage on the subject. If the organisation were notable, I would not nominate it for deletion. So, editing to make it "wiki friendly" is unlikely to be enough. What we need is proof that significant coverage exists in reputable reliable sources. I am pretty sure it does not. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Now I had added many citations from reliable sources like tryocity, bossnepal, narayanionline and many more, and there is no intension to advertise any services or products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSaugatDevkota (talk • contribs) 09:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you did not . Those are just ads in the form of stories, in adsense websites masquerading as news portals. Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK T A L K 12:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete No sign of GNG, and looks like spam. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 20:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. As pointed out above, this is a company masquerading as a school. It appears to peddle immigration advice and fails WP:COMPANY. Ifnord (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. Non-notable company represented in an article which screams spam. Wikipedia is not for advertising. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2020 (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.