Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivekananda Institute of Human Excellence, Hyderabad


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Vivekananda Institute of Human Excellence, Hyderabad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails to meet WP:ORG criteria Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep Vivekananda Institute of Human Excellence, Hyderabad has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Three quick references from 2001, 2008 and 2013 from national dailies: in Times of India, in The New Indian Express, in The Hindu. Another reference discusses an event conducted by VIHE, Hyderabad in 2012 attended by 900 graduate students. --AmritasyaPutra T 18:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Times of India and New Indian Express just mention the institute in passing as location of events. They don't read on notability.  The Hindu article doesn't mention the institute at all.  The last source does mention the institute at a bit more length.  But that was a poor showing, if that is the best you have. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's covering events conducted by the institute in the institute's campus. It is not passing mention. There is no need to repeat the name multiple times since the entire article is about it. Training institutes are covered for their conventions/conferences mostly and less for, their buildings, for example. The article has other references too. --AmritasyaPutra T 02:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. WP:INHERITORG. But I think your article doesn't do justice to the Institute. I understood more about it by reading their web site than your article. So, I wonder if you article is serving any purpose. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization. This organization has been noticed by people outside.- Bladesmulti (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Satisfies WP:ORGIN, the sources have been provided. -sarvajna (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * no - there are almost no sources talking about the institution. mentioning it as a place where X happened is not what NOTABILITY is about. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Conventions were conducted at the institute by the institute. "Place where X happened" is not correct interpretation. --AmritasyaPutra T 04:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As i wrote above, only one of those sources gives ~any~ discussion to the institute as having organized the event, and even that discussion is slight. in the others, it is little just the place where the event took place, with no further mention. Jytdog (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. I went through all the sources provided in the article; none of the secondary sources contain more than a passing mention of the institution, and therefore this fails to meet WP:ORG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have just added one, and it is more than a passing mention, as well as few others.- Bladesmulti (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The "indialogue foundation" does not seem to be a secondary reliable source. The others have only a passing mention. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ditto on that. the indialogue ref is just another event hosted there; the content is all about indialogue's work. the hydexcust article is just another passing mention, and the Hindu article just mentions the director, and briefly. Jytdog (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Noting that there are passing mentions and some relevance with multiple notable subjects, page is still well enough for a merge or redirect, not deletion. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * nope. per WP:ORG trivial mentions do not contribute to notability: "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: ...passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization."  none of the sources that you or anybody has brought is anything more than trivia - passing mentions. Jytdog (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Times of India and New Indian Express should be good enough. Hafspajen (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please actually look at the refs you mention. they just mention the institute in passing.  thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment And there is Express News Service too. Hafspajen (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2014 (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.