Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turban training centre


 * 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. After being re-listed three times, there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on this articles future. Continuous improvement from those interested might spare this article another AFD in the future. A quick Google Search brings up a lot of links, although many of them are YouTube and non-notable sources. However, a few, like this one (already used in the article) could be considered credible with a more thorough look. Finding more than one credible source would be ideal. Re-listing the article a fourth time is unlikely to trigger further discussion (based on the previous three re-listings), and will keep that not so pretty AFD tag on the top of the page for more time. (non-admin closure) T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 23:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Turban training centre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article do not meet WP:NOTABILITY. No results founds for Google News Search or Scholar search. Amartyabag  TALK2ME  08:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. No reliable sources substantiate the article's meager content.  Speedy deletion probably would have been acceptable as there is no indication of importance whatsoever (criteria A7).   dci  &#124;  TALK   19:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Weak keep.  Jethwarp has done a good job of cleaning up the article; the sources he's added are likely sufficient (though not perfect) to pass WP:GNG.   dci  &#124;  TALK   01:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. No evidence per WP:RS or WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment - although on google search major results found are of youtube and advet sites but also found couple of news items related to article and so did clean up of article, reserve my vote for now.Jethwarp (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC) 
 * Keep - after having added categories like Category:Personal care and service occupations, I opine to vote as keep.Notability is already established from news reports.Jethwarp (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:21, 2 March 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.