Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIITJEE


 * 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   keep. While I sympathize with the nominator it is obvious that this does indeed meet the notability guidelines, and therefore should be kept. Shereth 15:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

FIITJEE

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I had proposed this one for deletion,but one of the user contested it citing it's presence in some resources.I think that even if it gets some coverage in local or national media sources,it fails to attract any interest from a user unfamiliar to the subject.Moreover there are hundreds of thousands of coaching institutes scattered across India,but that doesn't mean we list them all here.See What Wikipedia is not Shashankgupta (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. "I don't like it" is not a reason to delete. There is no policy requiring that coaching institutes be excluded from Wikipedia, so the nominator would be better of reading WP:Notability. As far as this particular org, The Hindu has at least 21 pieces - significant and trivial, Financial Express, Indian Express, Indian Express, Daily News, Bahrain, The Financial Express, Business Standard, Livemint - Wall Street Jouranal, India - trivial mention, and a bit more. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not about "I don't like" or all that. Do you expect anybody to come to wikipedia looking for this one? It certainly diminishes wikipedia's value as a source of knowledge.Should we create an article for every "XYZ" institute in any "ABC" town?--Shashankgupta (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as Non-Notable. Has little or no encyclopaedic value. Even if they are famous, they are not institutions in themselves. They derive their notability from being linked to a particular exam. --Deepak D'Souza 17:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How is this non-notable when it meets all the requirements of WP:GNG? -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the subject has multiple sources. But notability is not subject to number of sources alone but has to be inherent in the subject itself. The subject derives its notability from the fact that it is a preparatory course for a premier exam. The exam in itself derives its notability from the fact that it is an entrance exam to a premier group of institutions . If I can put it this way, FIIT-JEE's notability is 3rd-degree, with IIT making the first degree and IIT-JEE second degree. Hence IMHO it is not notable in itself. --Deepak D'Souza 08:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your "inherent in the subject itself" idea is your subjective evaluation of importance and significance. That is not how notability is determined, and not how the PNC is formulated.  Notability is not subjective.  It's not subject to Wikipedia editors' personal whims, and not formulated along the lines of their personal ideas of how human knowledge ought to be structured in "first", "second", and "third degree"s.  It's based on what human knowledge actually is, and subject to whether and how that human knowledge is properly recorded and documented in the world at large.  Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If Notability is not subjective, it is not objective either.--Deepak D'Souza 10:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is important to add this: As a long time reader of Hindu and Forntline(a sister Publication), I can tell you that FIIT-JEE is a regular advertiser in the Hindu, and a frequent sponsor of advertorials in Frontline. In fact, most of the links you have pointed out to the Hindu are joint programmes conducted by the Hindu Group and FIIT-JEE. The last search result is an editorial response to the criticism of Hindu :-) --Deepak D'Souza 08:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I need some persuading that an educational training institution that is named in 140 sources in Google News has insufficient notability to include in Wikipedia. If you believe that the Hindu and Frontline are not reliable sources for this subject, then please consult the reliable sources noticeboard at WP:RSN to get a considered opinion on the matter. As it stands, the nomination and delete vote smack of IDONTLIKEIT rather than reasoned argument. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:FIIT-JEE is a coaching class, not an educational training institution. There is a major difference between the two.--Deepak D'Souza
 * Comment:I dont understand why it has become a habbit to accuse someone who does not agree with you of "IDONTLIKEIT". IDONTLIKEIT or ILIKEIT speccifically means that a voter votes for or against a topic based on his/her personal like or dislike of a subject instead of evaluating as per Wikipedia guidlines. I have provided the reasons for my vote and the nominator has present his/her reasons for putting it on AfD. How then does this become a case of IDONTLIKE IT? Do you expect everyone to agree with you and come to the same conclusion as you do? Please assume good faith and stop making things personal. If you can accuse the nominator and delete voters of IDONTLIKEIT, you should first ask yourself if your stance does not "smack of ILIKEIT".--Deepak D'Souza 09:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Coaching vs education training would seem semantic. They train students into passing the IIT-JEE entrance exam. And as for IDONTLIKEIT, I think you and the nominator look down on FIITJEE and thus you're arguing for deletion. It might not be the most impressive of educational organisations, but it does seem to be notable. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference is not semantic. It is very clear cut. Coaching classes are an optional suplementary recourse for students. They are not part of the educational system; they exist outside it. For example,the IIT is a government recognized institution which is subject to the rules and regulations of the state whereas coaching classes like FIIT-JEE are not. You can complete your education without recourse to a coaching class but you cannot get a degree if your institution is not regulated or approved by local laws. Its that simple. What makes you think that I am looking down on FIIT-JEE? Do you know something about me that I do not? Perhaps you can tell me more of my inner dark secrets that have been hidden from me :-). --Deepak D'Souza 10:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that you are not, as can be seen above, evaluating as per the PNC, but rather you are applying your own personal, subjective, estimation of importance/significance. Others have argued that in depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources exists.  In response you have failed to even address what they say, let alone looked at the numbers, depths, and provenances of the sources.  Instead you've been creating straw men about Google hits (which no-one here has counted in the first place) and quibbling over irrelevancies such as the precise description of the subject.  Your reply to Fences and windows above about coaching classes, which completely avoids the substantive point made, is but one example of your doing this.  Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried very hard but I cannot see how coaching classes are semantically similar to standard education. Sure they both teach. But you have to pass your 12 std public exams in order to qualify for IIT-JEE. Joining FIIT-JEE cannot qualify you for ITT-JEE if you have failed your board exam. So how can you say that there is no difference between the two?--Deepak D'Souza 10:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the references given above do not present a neutral point of view about FIITJEE and do not discuss the subject in general,seeming more like adverisements.They merely indicate it's scaling operation and hence not reliable.--Shashankgupta (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are determined if the source has a reputation for fact checking. You suggest that every single one of the 140 news articles that mention FIIJEE are unreliable? Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability has been demonstrated by substantial coverage in reliable sources. Saying that peoples arguments are based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a perfectly reasonable response to the arguments expressed for deletion, which simply say that this can't be notable because it's a coaching institute for an exam, rather that address the issue of whether it is notable by Wikipedia's definition of the term, which is based on coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately most people at AfD define notability simply by the number of Google hits without going into the results of the search. Its pretty easy that way. If someone can ascribe motives to my argument should I also say that those who voted keep did it because they liked it. This meets the definition of ILIKEIT more than my vote:''It's not just any coaching institute -- it's one of the most notable coaching institutes in India." --Deepak D'Souza 10:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's an argument for notability, not that they like it. You've still got to persuade anyone that the sources are invalid - concentrate on that angle, not ILIKEIT/DONTLIKEIT. As it stands, you seem to have a special insight into FITJEE and the validity of the sources which other editors are not privy to. You need to demonstrate that your view is correct. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats really nice! You accuse me of bias without assigning any reason for it(except for your "thinking") and then tell me not to concentrate on it. Did I say I have any special insight into FIIT-JEE? No, I have specifically questioned the 21 hits for Hindu. Anyone who goes through those 21 refs can see that many of those are articles about joint programmes between FIIT-JEE and Hindu group. I just added something I knew as a regular reader of the paper. Did I question the valdity of the other sources in order to buttress my point? No! Then why are you are you curious about my "insight into the validity of other sources"? Now let me come to why I called Utcursh's vote as "likely to meet ILIKEIT". Its not that I believed that he was biased in favour of the class but to show that it is very easy to assign motives to other voters My argument has been that a subject has to have some inherent notability in itself rather than merely relying on how many reliable sources there are. And I based my vote on this argument. If google hits is the only criteria, 99% of articles at AfD will pass through.Why even bother with AfD then? It doesn't bother me if someone else disagrees with me. People are bound to differ in their interpretation of guidlines. What pissed me off was that I was accused of being biased.--Deepak D'Souza 11:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My argument has been that a subject has to have some inherent notability in itself rather than merely relying on how many reliable sources there are. &mdash; and that's exactly where you are wrong. Notability is not subjective. And I based my vote on this argument. &mdash; and that's exactly where you are wrong.  Notability and Deletion policy explain what Wikipedia actually needs from people at AFD, and it is not subjective estimations of whether one thinks that something is or is not notable. If google hits is the only criteria, 99% of articles at AfD will pass through.Why even bother with AfD then? &mdash; and that's where you are raising a straw man instead of addressing the definition of notability that has been quite clearly pointed out to you. Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for having reverted your edit. I realized I had acted in haste when I had looked at the diff; but by the time I logged back in the my changes had been reverted, so I could not revert myself. Nontheless I believe that numbers aren't everything as per wikipedia rules. Even the General notability guidelines say that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article.. Isn't that the whole point of having an AfD debate.? --Deepak D'Souza 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of good sources showing notability, even after tossing out the ones the seem like advert-articles. Priyanath talk 01:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not just any coaching institute -- it's one of the most notable coaching institutes in India. References are easy to find. utcursch | talk 12:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A notable article is bound to have good sources,but the converse is not always true.--Shashankgupta (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Every body here is talking about references,sources etc,but no one has come up with a strong reason as to the the utility of this article.No sufficient arguements about what makes this one important.
 * "no one has come up with a strong reason as to the the utility of this article". The reason we're talking about references and sources is that this is how we judge notability on Wikipedia - we don't use our own independent judgements. You need to apply WP:ORG rather than trying to judge importance or utility. "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance."... A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All said and done? lets close this AfD. The discussions no longer center on the subject itself but on the interpretations of rules. If anyone is interested, lets continue somewhere else. No point in keeping this AfD open when there is consensus.--Deepak D'Souza 04:35, 8 July 2009 (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.