Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Institute of Management & 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. Spartaz Humbug! 23:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

National Institute of Management & Technology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not satisfy WP:schooloutcomes or WP:nschool or wp:org. Most of the links in the references are either deadlinks or primary sources. Vikram Vincent 13:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institutions, so most certainly satisfies WP:Schooloutcomes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Degree awarded institute which is affiliated with a recognized university. Here is my argument for similar institutions.  D My Son  18:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * wp:other stuff exists ain't valid in an AFD. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: written like an advertisement, would require TNT to clean up if sources could be found to establish notability. Sources in the article are collection of database style directory entries, lists, surveys, promos, content from school websites. Its one of the most impressive lists of sources that do not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth in any article I've seen. The sources also reflect that this is an advertisement, not an encyclopedic article. I did a BEFORE and didn't find anything that meets SIGCOV; given the refs in the article, I don't think the author would have missed an opportunity to have an actual source with SIGCOV, so I don't believe there are any. If I missed something, please let me know, I'll be happy to change my mind if someone shows SIGCOV, but even if sources exist there is still the actual article which needs TNT to change it from an advert to an article. The above keep votes do not provide sources and are personal opinions unsupported by guidelines, which I believe these have been spammed indiscriminately to a variety of noms without actually looking at the articles.  // Timothy :: talk  13:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I totally agree with everything said by TimothyBlue in relation to the article. It's written like an advertisement, the sourcing is horrible, it would take a fundamental rewrite based on sources that likely don't exist to meet Wikipedia's quality/notability standards, and the people who voted keep have been spamming the same exact messages everywhere without considering the quality of the articles or basing their "votes" on actual policy. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Go  Phightins  !  11:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment unless someone can come with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Did a clean up of the page and yet it does not pass WP:HEY. Vikram Vincent 08:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, and fails criteria 3 of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES because the article fails WP:ORG. Editors who haven't read SCHOOLOUTCOMES in awhile, will be surprised to see that the language of that policy changed after an RFC in 2017.4meter4 (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2021 (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.