Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North East Centre for Technology Application and Reach


 * 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. Some early delete votes are based on issues that were later fixed. The remaining issue is notability. For notability, there is a weak consensus to keep. Considering the discussion has been relisted twice, has gone on for 27 days, and some people have been notified explicitly, closing it as keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Ase1este charge-paritytime 09:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

North East Centre for Technology Application and Reach

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Page on a new research institute created by an SPA that has disclosed on talk page a COI as an employee of the institute. The text of the page is an unambiguous copyvio of. WP:BEFORE search shows passing coverage in The Economic Times and press release type coverage more broadly. Nominating because 1) I am skeptical that this meets the bar of significant coverage. 2) Any notability that there is looks to me to be very marginal, and the article is in such poor shape that WP:TNT applies. 3) The paid COI editor should anyway not be making the inclusion decision. Past institutions organized under the Department of Science and Technology (India) have not always been found to be notable.  Pinging  who draftified another instance of the page;  who declined AfC on that version;  who removed my improperly-applied speedy tag. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * strike TNT per improvements by RationalPuff, see my comments below. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Has too many issues to qualify as a Wikipedia article. – Cupper 52 Discuss! 12:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - I agree that someone with such a clear COI should not be allowed to bypass the WP:AfC process Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources, no categories, no evidence of notability, created by a COI editor, copyvio... This is not a Wp article. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. It seems that this is a clear copyright violation, so is eligible for speedy deletion under a different criterion from the one I contested. If this is found not to be a copyright violation then my recommenation is delete as non-notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is very problematic. WP:TNT applies per nom. JayJayWhat did I do? 00:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge if not keep with Department of Science and Technology (India). Strong Keep This is a legitimate Govt. of India organisation. I feel the article is rather a stub which needs improving. Here's some link from quick search.      RationalPuff (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * comment Changed my vote as I improved the stub somewhat but I'm sure it cam be improved further. I urge all editors to reconsider their opinion and possibly also can help improving the stub further. Thanks. RationalPuff (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that redirect to Department of Science and Technology (India) could be a sensible alternative to deletion here. I'm not convinced that any of the sources you provided, most of which were glancing mentions, constitute WP:SIGCOV.  I remain concerned about copyright: the license  does not appear to be compatible with Wikipedia licensing. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the statement, "this is subject to the material ... not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context", is compatible. But if enough has now been changed then the copyright issue is a matter for revision deletion, rather than deletion of the whole article. Of course we are still left with deciding notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The text copied into the article by the COI editor is still there, although an interested editor could certainly rewrite it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Now fixed. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * potential copyright issue has been eliminated. I have no doubt about the nobility of the subject. There are 1000s of search results about the subject of which several are reliable and significant coverage. However, as I said before it needs volunteers to improve upon the content. It will be a loss to the project trying to delete or even redirecting. RationalPuff (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I have struck out my vote. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I'm happy to change the delete vote implicit in my nomination to redirect per WP:CHEAP. I think that the case for keeping is still a bit weak, but I don't think TNT applies anymore, and there's room for reasonable people to disagree.   what do you think about the improvements and case for notability made by ?  (If you have time to glance through the article again; apologies for disturbing!) , I guess you've already seen. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as passing the WP:GNG. I did consider merging but no great candidate. The ministry is too high up. Independent, not affiliated to a university. gidonb (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep passes the WP:GNG with the sources provided, moreover we are discussing a regional organisation (higher than state level) servicing a population of 45+ million people.--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:40, 19 February 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.