Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Patanjali


 * 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. While the article is a stub, there is clearly no consensus for anything like deletion, and tertiary education institutions that verifiably are accredited have in all cases that I can think of been deemed notable. Sjakkalle (Check!)  19:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

University of Patanjali

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:ORGCRIT as the topic lacks detailed coverage in Independent reliable media. The only coverage are passing mentions in articles related to the parent org: Patanjali Yogpeeth or its founder Ramdev. The org does not inherit owner's notability. In addition, due to the nature of the Ayurveda related organization, WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS are relevant and, we have to have a very good reason to write about pseudo science orgs and fake medicine. We'd need much better documentation than is actually available in order to justify this article. The page creator has reverted a redirect to Patanjali Yogpeeth. So here we are. --Walrus Ji (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep University of Patanjali is a recognised degree issuing University. It is recognised by the University Grants Commission (India) as per this and the Uttarakhand government which passed The University of Patanjali Act, 2006.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The page creator claims accreditation equals notability, but there is no such rule as far as I know. Accreditation can be revoked any time whenever the org fails the accreditation criteria. In fact every year hundreds of org in India loose their accreditation. So accreditation cannot and should not mean default notability. Moreover there were issues with its accreditation and seem to have been granted under political pressure. See
 * , --Walrus Ji (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete A two-line article about a university established in 2006. Who/what/when/where/why? Nothing notable in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Accredited and officially recognised degree-awarding tertiary institution. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per argument above, there's no consensus that being accredited is sufficient. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There absolutely is. Please point me to a single AfD discussion where an accredited university has been deleted. Let alone lots of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is an accredited university, and the article has lots of potential to expand. From my view, this university (without a doubt) warrants a page. LeBron4 (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There's potential for expansion of the article as well. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 07:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge with Haridwar: Article does not meet ORGCRIT for a stand alone article. Wikipedia is not a directory. If the content and sources develop on the target page and notability is established and it meets SPLIT, it can be split. The content will also have a better chance of being noticed and developed in the target article than in a stand alone stub.  // Timothy ::  talk  22:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.