Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maheshwara Engineering College


 * 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 keep. Yunshui 雲 水 13:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Maheshwara Engineering College

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No content, only links to the college's website. Seemed a straightforward A3/G11 to me, but disagrees, so here we are... Bazj (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, and smack the nominator with the largest available trout quite a few times. No reasonable, competent editor could call this "a straightforward A3". It's not "only links to the college's website". It's an infobox, albeit a not-quite-perfect one. WP:A3 says, plain as day, without any ambiguity, "this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox". If Bazj doesn't understand that, they lack the basic WP:COMPETENCE to be applying speedy deletion tags. (And if they do understand it, why would they not only apply the tag but double down on the obvious error?) It's also clear that G11 doesn't apply; the infobox is standard form and its content appears entirely appropriate. Note also, very importantly, that this was the first attempt at article creation by an very inexperienced editor. All of their previous contributions were constructively and reasonably intended. So we have a well-intentioned, reasonably capable new editor who's just beginning to write their first article, does a pretty good job in their first step, and is inexplicably BITTEN by an experience editor who blithers in, tag-bombs the article with obviously inappropriate deletion tags without doing any of the most basic things that WP:BEFORE requires. And, unsurprisingly, the new editor is driven away. Fourteen minutes after beginning to write their first article, barely five minutes after their second edit of it, and for no reason other than the sheer carelessness and officiousness of an experienced editor who really should know better and is unwilling to admit and correct their most obvious error. The new editor ought to have a reasonable opportunity to return and complete their work. And that's much longer than the four whole goddam minutes Bazj so generously allowed after I posted to the article creator's talk page encouraging them to resume writing their first article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Update. I've updated the article by adding intro part and programme section but still it lacks references but, one should make decision only after looking INDAFD. — CutestPenguinHangout 19:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Kudos to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Not sure what Nom was thinking...E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, although it could use some copyediting of Hinglish. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 27 July 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.