Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PEARL Institute of Management and Information 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. One "keep" was struck and the other is very weakly argued.  Sandstein  21:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

PEARL Institute of Management and Information Technology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet any of the criteria set forth in WP:GNG, has been created by an account with WP:COI and should therefore be removed from wikipedia. Elektricity (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment [was "Keep", explain below]. It is a secondary school or college/university.  By longstanding practice, we keep such as long as their existence is not disputed, which it is not. --Doncram (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not really the case any more, . See Articles for deletion/The Sheffield Private School, Articles for deletion/The Quaid School, Articles for deletion/Ace School System (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/Muslim Shaheen School System (2nd nomination), which are all exceptions to "longstanding practice". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are many counter-counter-examples of recent AFDs where the longstanding practice is upheld. There was an RFC which was all messed up. --Doncram (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 08:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 08:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 08:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. That precedent is no more valid. Every private institute at least has to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP because they are for-profit. No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm   (talk)  12:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. This college/university is imparting educational services since 1999 for the masses of Balochistan in the region .... the page provides basic and general information. --Beds16 (talk) 19:30, 1 january 2018 (UTC) — Beds16 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * According to this source, the subject is a "private virtual campus", which acts as a resource centre, rather than a university. Hmm. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They are affiliate of virtual university in Pakistan named Virtual University of Pakistan. You can check their website. Störm   (talk)  05:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:GNG, which is perhaps not surprising given that the subject is not a university but a private resource centre. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The institution is indeed an higher education school/college and an affiliated study center of University of Balochistan, Virtual University of Pakistan and Institute of Cost and Management Accountants of Pakistan. -- for-example see the website link — UWL2013 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:21, 3 January 2018‎ (UTC) (UTC).


 * Comment above struck - UWL2013 is a confirmed sock of Beds16. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I struck my "Keep" vote above on basis that indeed it is identified as a "resource center" rather than a secondary school offering secondary degrees. Also the sockpuppeting is annoying, making the article's creation and defense seem likely to be a case of paid commercial promotional editing. --Doncram (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2018 (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.