Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre of Plasma Physics - Institute for Plasma Research (CPP-IPR)


 * 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   merge to Institute for Plasma Research. With the keep votes being somewhat unconvincing, consensus is to merge. -Scottywong | confess _ 17:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Centre of Plasma Physics - Institute for Plasma Research

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable research group. Complete lack of in-depth independent coverage. Even in their web homepage at isn't used. Regional unit of Institute for Plasma Research which is itself short of references (the article creator didn't seem keen on a redirect). Almost certainly the founder SB Bujarbarua is notable under WP:PROF (see ), but his three most widely cited papers appear to have been published prior to the establishment of this group. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Stuartyeates Sir, I really appreciate your point.First of all I am new to wikipedia so really I am unaware of all the facts. I just want t clarify some point that you mentioned. Prof. S. Bujarbarua was in Department of Physics, Dibrugarh University, Dibrugarh 786004, India before he found the institute. So his in his published papers his address is different. Second thing is that our institutional webpage is in under construction that's why I didn't put it there. It will be www.cppipr.res.in. Another thing is that this institute is a centre of IPR(Institute for Plasma Research) but independent institute.In the page of IPR there was not enough information. That's the main reason I tried. Sir I really not well familiar with the webpage things so if you help me to make the article good I shall be thankful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayanadhikari207 (talk • contribs) — Sayanadhikari207 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   Zappa  O  Mati   23:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Sayanadhikari207. The best thing you could do to make the article safe from deletion is to add some references. A good help page for this is Referencing for beginners. I tried to add some but I dont speak any Indian languages and from a quick search I didnt find good coverage in English. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep A well written article with plenty of encyclopedic information, and an excellent selection of high quality pics. Nothing gained by destroying the article. The nomination statement would have been more convincing if it confirmed that searches had been conducted in all extant Indian languages. Always important to avoid WP:Systemic bias. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable group with little (if any) WP:RS could be found, and doesn't meet the WP:GNG. A merge to Institute for Plasma Research could also be a possibility.  Zappa  O  Mati   20:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Another possibility could be to create SB Bujarbarua and merge this there per Stuartyeates.  Zappa  O  Mati   14:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't think this article should be deleted. It represents a well known plasma research institute in North-East India. From the references one can see the level of research it conducts. Every should get the chance to know  about the institute. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayanadhikari207 (talk • contribs)   —Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * One could also see that there's quite an early group of WP:Primary sources.  Zappa  O  Mati   13:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep I don't understand why people above refer it as research group. It is a research institution. No doubt on its notability, should be Kept. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 15:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Institute for Plasma Research. Fails WP:GNG because of the absence of sources, but at least some of the material is worth keeping in the article on the parent institute. If I understand Sayanadhikari207 correctly, however, WP:COI is an issue. -- 202.124.74.60 (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Institute for Plasma Research because of a lack of sources. There's some verifiable non-notable material here that might be better understood in context with the article about the main organization. Vcessayist (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 03:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I have no problem re its notability. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because you have no problem with its notability doesn't mean it's notable here.  Zappa  O  Mati   20:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Institute for Plasma Research per Vcessayist and IP, although only to the extent that it does not get undue weight in that article. I did a search and could find no coverage in WP:RS; the one newspaper article cited in the article was a list of award winners that did not mention the institute a single time. I allow the possibility that there are reliable Hindi sources, which I don't have the capacity to check, but unless and until we see some evidence that this is verifiable, I think merge is the best call. As a school, this falls under WP:CORPDEPTH ("A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service"), which requires significant coverage in secondary sources. It also appears to fall short of WP:GNG requirements. Those arguing for keep assert that it is well-known institution, but do not cite sources to back up the assertion. --Batard0 (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2012 (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.


 * Keep Please let it review once again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayanadhikari207 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)