Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNIM


 * 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   The result was delete per notability rationales. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

GNIM

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

Article is written in total promotional tone. No significant instance of notability for being an encyclopedic entry. Twice erased as per CSD(Under two different title). Hitro 09:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Editor has removed one section, but Article still seems to be promotional.

Hitro 20:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wizardman  05:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  JForget  23:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - the institute looks to be the MBA/business school division of Guru Nadak College which does not have an article. What would make more sense would be to have an article on the college with this article as a section. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Are you sure this isn't a hoax? Maybe it should be speedied. It does not make sense whatsoever and does not meet notability...  Lady   Galaxy  23:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question - What makes you beleive this is a hoax?
 * It just looks really cluttered and disorganized... and the website isn't designed too well...  Lady   Galaxy  18:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of reliable sources. Author may want to consider writing an article on the college and list the MBA there. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, article makes no claim of notability for whatever this is. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing to indicate that this particular school is notable, and no secondary sources either as far as I can find. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:55, 4 September 2008 (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.