Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feni computer institute


 * 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. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 16:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Feni computer institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NOTE: Top Google results were all either not third-party or not reliable or not significantly covering the topic. Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * delete Not sure asserts credible claim to significance. Not notable. Unable to locate sourcing. Dloh cierekim  01:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:OUTCOMES, verified degree-granting institution. -- Zayeem  (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd agree with that - if some non-primary verification of its status can be located and added to the article. AllyD (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Appears to be a degree-granting institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 10:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Whether it is a legitimate degree-granting institution or not, coverage in reliable sources is required, and there is not only none in the article now I could only find an extremely small amount, nowhere near enough to meet WP:GNG. Jinkinson   talk to me  01:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Verified degree-awarding institutions are almost always considered notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Have any of the editors who were unable to find sources conducted a search in Bengali? That is by far the most likely language to find sources. Deleting this without a Bengali search would be a case of systemic bias.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * reply the keep arguments are tenuous and hypothetical-- sourcing should/may exist, so the subject is notable. Institutions like this are notable because they are notable. Unfortunately, just being a "degree-granting institution" does not ensure notability. Without reliable sourcing, we don't know the subject to be notable. Were there actually Bengali language sourcing on the page, then we could evaluate the coverage to determine it's significance. The coverage available just does not meet the need so long as it remains hypothetical. Dloh cierekim  15:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment I closed this as delete on 6 March 2014, which was subsequenetly challenged on my talk page. New sources have come to light, so I'm now relisting. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep In practice, consensus here for the last 3 or 4 years at least that all genuine degree-granting institutions are to be considered notable--the only exceptions have been institutions whose nature is dubious or where there are other critical problems.  This is one of our best established guidelines, even though not formally adopted as a guideline: it has been followed more consistently than most of the written ones. This is WP, and the rules here are what we choose to have them, and the best proof (possibly the only proof) that we have a rule is that we consistently follow it. So what the delete argument is saying is that it is asking for a change in a very helpful established guideline: helpful because it lets us devote our efforts in this field to finding sources and making other very necessary improvements  for the frequently inadequate submitted articles in this field, instead of arguing about them, which accomplishes nothing helpful to the encyclopedia. If one wishes to pretend the the GNG applies in all situations, despite the clear statement in the guideline itself that it does not, one can say  that the reason for keeping all colleges whose existence can be verified is that there are always sources, even if they are diffciulty to find.  In this case, they were not the least hard to find:  I looked for 2 minutes in Google: besides a number of possibly unreliable unofficial directory listings,  there's a listing on the official government site,  and a decent  newspaper story. . I see more further down in the search results also.  DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment It appears to me that "deshiresult.com" is a personal website, not "the official government site", so can't be considered a WP:RS in its own right. I have replaced it in the article by adding a link to "www.techedu.gov.bd" which is the relevant govt site. That and the Daily Star article confirm that this institution grants diplomas and certificates, but it does not appear to be listed as a degree institution. AllyD (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The www.techedu.gov.bd listing is sufficient to confirm this as a post-school education institution, along with the Daily Star article reference. AllyD (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2014 (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.