Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Govt. Industrial Training Institute Panchkula


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Govt. Industrial Training Institute Panchkula

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:V JMHamo (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   21:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   21:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails GNG. South Nashua (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as this is a degree-awarding vocational higher secondary institution, and articles on such institutions have been generally kept provided they are verifiable (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). This ITI is listed in the official list of government approved ITIs, so verifiabilty, at least, is not an issue. For nontrivial coverage, see this article in the Dainik Bhaskar, or this one in Amar Ujala.  I'm sure more such articles can be found (e.g., search for the name of the institution in Hindi -- "आईटीआई पंचकूला", or literally, ITI Panchkula). — Stringy Acid (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The news articles mentioned are about the lack of a canteen and enrolment. Hardly newsworthy and not enough to merit a Wikipedia entry. Also, another main issue with the page is the lack of any independent sources with which to verify, apart from an entry in a directory. There is no 'significant independent coverage or recognition' Thus, it clearly fails WP:NRV David. moreno 72    08:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article lacks information and does not seem to be worth keeping. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Various exercises in WP:BEFORE indicate that the only results are ; as such no notability established. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  14:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per above. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   22:09, 29 April 2017 (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.