Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parshvanath College of Engineering


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Parshvanath College of Engineering

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As per the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sc%202608612p.txt) the college has been ordered to shut down permanently. To prevent misleading of Indian students I propose closing down of this article. Greencottonmouth123 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Parshvanath College of Engineering
 * Keep This article shouldn't be deleted just because the college is no longer open.  Instead, the article should be changed and re-written in the past tense.  Howicus (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability is not temporary. We do not delete articles on institutions just because they have closed and our remit is not to provide careers guidance to Indian students. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Necrothesp. Perhaps someone who understands legalese better than I do, could summarise the Supreme Court of India ruling in the article. Has the College actually closed, or are further legal cases waiting? This needs to be explained also in the article. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  04:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable, degree awarding institution. No valid deletion reason given by the nominator. The way forward is a careful rewrite to fully explain the present status. TerriersFan (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Peculiar rationale of nominator! What kind of "misleading" you are worrying about? We can easily change all "is" to "was"! --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2013 (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.