Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rathinam College of Arts and Science


 * 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Rathinam College of Arts and Science

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nothing more than an advertisement. No assertion of notability made. I was thinking of speedying this one, but thought it would be better to discuss it. Mark Chovain 08:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanitisement, well wide of the notability mark. Blueboy96 12:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 15:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 15:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as an apparently accredited post-secondary institution (with a secondary education component as well). --Dhartung | Talk 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I think it would be better to start over, if its ever re-created. Corpx 17:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If no one is willing to rewrite this in the wikipedia format, sourced and unbiased then I'd be happy to keep it (as i'm sure we all would). But in its present state it would be quicker to delete it and have it recreated and rewritten if so desired later on.WikipedianProlific(Talk) 16:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep now that it has been stubbidifed. Delete without prejudice to re-creation, as WikipedianProlific says. All post secondary institutions can and should have articles, but Google only shows directory listings for real existence, but no obvious non-trivial 3rd party sources. Better to start over. DGG (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)DGG (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, plenty of Google News Archive results and I have tidied up the article, and created K.P.M. Trust to deal with the other schools that are part of this technology park. John Vandenberg 01:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Be wary of straight google-counts. Of the 21 hits that come up, most are trivial (e.g. Single line comments that someone at the college has released a magazine), and not coverage of the college itself.  I'd use the gnews link you provide as more evidence that this does not have enough external coverage. Mark Chovain 01:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This, attended by the principal of Government College of Technology, is trivial? The point I am making is that there is a lot of direct links in English sources that can be used to expand the article.  And of course there are all the sources that are not in English, and that dont appear in Google when you or I search. John Vandenberg 02:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I said most were trivial, not all. As a side point, even the link you provided is not independent: It is taken entirely from a press release from the college.  I admit, it's better than nothing, but I was hoping to see something a little more substantial when I saw someone claiming "plenty of Google News Archive results".  Regardless, if it's going to be rewritten, it should be done from scratch.  Mark Chovain 04:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide some evidence that it was a press release? The event was mentioned a day prior and The Hindu article says it was written by "Our Staff Reporter".  Anyway, here is another, which describes a "Apoorva-05" event that was held at the college; this was also mentioned on the day of the event. Also, why should the article be rewritten from scratch? John Vandenberg 15:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * the present stub seems an acceptable start, once some puffery is removed from the first (& only) paragraph. DGG (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2007 (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.