Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institution of Technicians and Engineers


 * 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.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 01:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Institution of Technicians and Engineers

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No attempt made to demonstrate notability. Created by a person with blatant COI. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

thank you RHaworth

This is not blatant,I am a person who knows very much about the organization.


 * Delete non notable. COI argument in nom is irrelevant and not a reason for deletion. Greglocock (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * how to things mean notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shobybxi (talk • contribs) 03:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * see wp:notability Greglocock (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The Institution i.e ITE Kashmir is fast growing professional organisation in Kashmir to provide education with professional development.

Some of the trades, fields of Engg. and Local Craft have been given impressive interest for their propagation and Training programmes these branches in Kashmir by INSTITUTION OF TECHNICIANS AND ENGINEERS, KASHMIR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acknowledger77 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC) shobybxi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC).

This Institution is inspired through works, craft-work introduced by great sufi and scholar Mir Sayyid Ali Hamadani way back some 650 years with present system of importing Technical Education on Scientific and Technological basis. 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete None of the claims in the article are backed by reliable independent sources. If you took out the unsourced material there would be nothing left. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Shouldn't have been relisted. Non notable, no RS Greglocock (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2012 (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.