Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Railway Institute of Transportation Management


 * 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   redirect to Centralised Training Institutes of the Indian Railways. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 12:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Indian Railway Institute of Transportation Management

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doubtful corporation notability. The article is depending solely on the subject's own website and has been tagged for sourcing since 5 years. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete / redirect to Centralised Training Institutes of the Indian Railways. I have some sympathy with articles on internal entities of Indian Railways, given its scale, but only where notability norms can be demonstrated. Hindustan Times has a 2005 piece on bureaucratic position-play in this organisation, but that does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable enough. Preetikapoor0 (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How? With which argument do you support that vote? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (articulate)  @ 18:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect as suggested--a good solution, because it can be expanded when sources are foun d.  DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect per DGG. -User:DanTD (talk) 17:06, 18 September 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.