Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Java Institute for Advance Technology


 * 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. Nakon 03:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Java Institute for Advance Technology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was tagged by the author for speedy deletion, which I declined. The rationale given was "There is a request from the organisation to remove this from the Wiki", which is not a valid reason, and it is not eligible for G7 because the author is not the sole editor. But I have worked on the article for a while and I'm not sure what to make of it. If it is a diploma-granting institution it would be presumed notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. But if I am reading it correctly, they grant a certificate in Java technology rather than a diploma. If that is the case it needs to meet WP:GNG, which it clearly doesn't. I could find no outside references at all, just the institution's webpage. Unless someone can find more sources, or evidence that they qualify under SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I recommend deletion. If kept, the title should be moved to Java Institute for Advanced Technology. MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - software training organization article of unclear notability, lacking significant, independent RS coverage. No evidence this organization is accredited - the certifications mentioned are not equivalent to accreditation. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2015 (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.