Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JGI Group


 * 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The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

JGI Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:CORP: parent company of a notable university does not inherit notability. No independent sources given; Google search only turns up sources covering JGI Group in reference to Jain University. Separate article not warranted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Jain University, as nominator. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:AFD is not correct venue to discuss/propose a redirect or merge. I would suggest you to withdraw the nomination and open a discussion on article's talk page and go by consensus achieved there. By nominating an article for deletion, nominator is supposed to have already cast their !vote as delete and thus is not allowed !vote twice. They are however free to add as many comments they want. Anup   [Talk]  07:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks, I appreciate your note. But think about it: why would I close this four-day-old thread just to start the same discussion on another page? Anyone watching that page has already been notified about this thread by an entry in their watchlist and the big red notice on the article referring here. And more people can see it here anyway. I realize that proposing a redirect through AfD is not the right way to do things, but the thought occurred to me after having already completed the nomination. It is a valid outcome for an AfD discussion, and there's little reason why the nominator can't be the one to suggest that course of action. What I'm saying here is I'm quite sure that you're right, but I see no good reason to do as you suggest other than just for the sake of bureaucracy, and that's not a good enough reason to do most things. In fact in most cases it's a bad reason to do anything. Respectfully, I think it's best to let this run its course, as much of a mess as it is. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, someone should have notified you long before. It appears like you are not proposing an article for deletion at articles for deletion venue. While an afd can be closed as non-consensus due to lack of participation (as it seems to be the case here); if you have left a message on talk page and no one showed up, you could still go ahead and do a bold redirect/merge. It could have been turned into a redirect by now had you followed the proper procedure. Bureaucratic methods tend to make simpler things complex, I was suggesting otherwise.


 * You do not set a course of action for Afd. It is predetermined, i.e. to evaluate notability, and one has to argue either against or in support of it (it mostly results in either keep or delete. Sometimes middle path is adopted as redirect or merge but I believe that was never a purpose of afd). The big red notice is not really an ideal method to attract attention of interested editors.


 * An individual notable subject can have more than one articles, and two or more subjects notable in themselves (but closely related) could have only one. There is a sharp difference between these two (afd and redirect/merge) discussion types and are not really the same. It is all right if you do not want to withdraw, but you must struck your double !vote. And yes, if you plan on continuing this discussion, move it to either yours or mine or this afd's talk page. Anup   [Talk]  21:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are being unexpectedly pedantic, and I admit that your latest comment confuses me, but since it does not seem to be a comment on this topic but merely trying to lecture me again, I'll assume that it's of no consequence. But do not accuse me of double-!voting again. I have explained my rationale both generally and to you directly; no double-!vote has occurred. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn. There doesn't seem to be any interest in discussing this topic, and this is attracting an unexpected level of drama of the "you're doing things differently and I don't like it" variety, and that rarely ends without butthurt and even more rarely results in any benefit to the encyclopedia. Thus, I'm out. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:24, 29 September 2016 (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.