Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sagar Institute of Research & 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. No sources at all have been found to establish notability nor is there sufficient consensus for IAR.  JGHowes   talk  21:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Sagar Institute of Research & Technology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I find no evidence of WP:N, no coverage of the sort required for WP:GNG. Largoplazo (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ORG: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools." "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." Largoplazo (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read that piece of rubbish many times. It has usually been ignored in the case of degree-awarding institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "I've read the guidelines that represent a consensus of the community. We shouldn't follow them because I don't like them." Also, I'd be interested to see the data that support your claim that the explicit guideline on this very topic, which was obviously singled out for mention because there had been disagreement on it and people felt very strongly that an explicit statement was necessary, is nevertheless usually ignored. I would guess that the sentiment you've expressed ("rubbish") illustrates the motive for including that very specific guideline that clarifies that "degree-awarding tertiary institution" is not to be taken to suffice for a finding of notability. Largoplazo (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * May I suggest you read other related AfDs and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. That is the consensus of the community on this particular subject, established over many AfDs. And also consider WP:SYSTEMIC and ask yourself whether an article on a similar college in the United Kingdom or the United States would be deleted at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would feel the same (I think I have expressed the same feeling in at least one deletion nomination for a U.S. institution, though I can't swear to it) about schools in the United States. There are scads of commercial degree-granting tertiary institutions in the U.S. that, if they received no note in WP:GNG-level sources, wouldn't merit inclusion here any more than commercial operations that aren't educational institutions. Giving an education for money is just a type of commercial service. Largoplazo (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't helpful to your case to raise WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which says to avoid raising WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in deletion discussions. It points to this RFC which concluded, among other things, that "WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning." So, see Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. That is the community consensus on that subject. Largoplazo (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You should note that the RfC (which is in any case highly controversial) referred only to secondary schools and not to tertiary institutions. Please don't try to extend it to something it quite clearly did not cover. SCHOOLOUTCOMES merely summarises precedent for keeping these institutions. It is shorthand for saying that precedent has been established. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You can call it "precedent" or not, but the RFC found that that shouldn't be raised in deletion discussions, yet you raised it, and now you're raising it again. Note that while the scope of the discussion as initiated was secondary schools, the second bullet point of the outcome says that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the arguments-to-avoid, not that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the arguments-to-avoid with the proviso that that applies only to secondary schools. Regardless of the initial scope, the finding was essentially that it's circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is fallacious argumentation. It isn't fallacious and to be avoided only when the subject is secondary schools. It's just as fallacious and to be avoided when the subject is tertiary schools. The example in arguments-to-avoid refers to a secondary school, but the overall commentary isn't so restricted. The consensus was "Circular reasoning should be avoided in RFDs." Raising WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is circular reasoning. Largoplazo (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * By your reasoning then, all claims of precedent are circular reasoning. So also by your reasoning there is clearly no valid precedent on Wikipedia, so we should obviously go back to long tedious discussions on every single AfD even if a precedent has clearly been established. That seems like a real step backwards, but if that's what you think then that's what you think. Your prerogative. Mine to disagree with you. The closer's to decide between the arguments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're digressing. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES doesn't say "Do not raise WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in the context of secondary education." It says (paraphrasing) "Do not raise WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES." Whatever reasoning led to that result is the reasoning of the people in the RFC. But that was one of the conclusions: Do not raise WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in deletion discussion. If you want that to change, begin an RFC to change it. Largoplazo (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - unable to find any significant coverage - besides facebook and linkedin could only find listings that included the Institute; no reviews or writeups or other evidence of notability - article created by SPA - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: I don't think we are having problems finding information on this university because they are primarily in India. Their graduates and professors seem to publish plenty (since I can't even find sources on them because the search results are clogged with papers).  Will try to find more sources later. Rockphed (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm also finding lots of books and papers by their academics. I even found articles on some of their class studies: "Sagar Institute of Research and Technology students get familiar with Crompton and Greaves brand", 21 July 2014, The Times of India and "Sagar Institute of Research Technology and Science students learn pharma unit basics", The Times of India, July 4, 2014. I'm not finding anything on the university itself which might be because it is just one arm of various Sagar Institutes that are all related to one another. Perhaps an article on the parent organization itself would be more sensible?4meter4 (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find any sources. I haven't checked local language sources (which probably won't show up for an english search), but absent someone with local language skills, I don't think we are going to find any sources.  The extent of sourcing in the current article amounts to "there is an accredited institution with this name", which violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Rockphed (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per and time-honoured precedent as evidenced by thousands of AfD closures. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Necrothesp raised WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMESwhich says to avoid raising WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in deletion discussions, on account of it amounting to circular reasoning. Largoplazo (talk)
 * See my comment above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2019 (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.