Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aakash Institute (3rd nomination)

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aakash Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: Have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aakash Institute (2nd nomination), AFD withdrawn by nominator dated June 10, 2017.

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Although there are 35 references quotes in the article, most fail WP:ORGIND as they rely on quotations and facts from the company or its officers. The others simply name-check the company or include it in a Top 10 list. None of the articles provide any depth of coverage and simply regurgitate company announcements. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am aware that this is the third nomination of this article. The first closed as "no consensus" and the second was recently withdrawn by the nominator before I had a chance to finish my searches and comment. I've reopened this AfD for two reasons. The first is because the initial "no consensus" AfD was 4 years ago in 2013 and was a non-admin close who recognised that there was very little meaningful discussion and no apparent analysis of relevant sources. I agree 100% with the reasoning provided. Here is my analysis of the included sources:
  • Business Standard article fails WP:ORGIND as it is a PR release and relies almost entirely on quotations from the Managing Director.
  • This article is not attributed to any named journalist (unlike most of the articles on the website) and for me, is questionable for reliability, fact checking and meaningful editorial oversight. In my opinion, it fails the criteria as a reliable secondary source.
  • This IndiaToday article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it simply includes the company in a Top 10 list with an extremely hyperbolic description.
  • [http://www.india.com/education/top-coaching-centres-for-jee-main-2017-1715866/ This article also simply name-checks the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH criteria for establishing notability.
  • This hidubusinessonline article fails WP:ORGIND as it relies almost entirely on quotes from the Managing Director.
  • This indiatoday article is an advertorial and fails WP:ORGIND as the pertinent in-depth parts of the article appear to be written by the Managing Directoy.
  • This hansindia article is also not attributed to any named journalist and is therefore questionable for reliability, fact checking and meaningful editorial oversight. This article is unquestionably an advertorial and fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This hindubusinessline article fails WP:ORGIND as it is a PR announcement
  • This Business Standard article fails WP:ORGIND and relies on quotes and facts from the MD
  • This hindubusinessline article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as the company is merely mentioned in passing
  • This Free Press Journal article fails WP:ORGIND as it is a PR annoucement.
  • This Business Standard article is a PR announcement and fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This TheHindu article fails WP:ORGIND as it is a PR announcement and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This Daily Excelsior article appears to be a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This intoday article is a company announcement and fails ORGIND
  • This thehindu article is unattributed, is a company announcement, and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This thehansindia article repears a company announcement in relation to the "Aakash National Talent Hunt], is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This Pujab News Express article reports on the talent hunt but fails WP:ORGIND as most of the text is derived from company sources
  • This indiatimes article fails WP:ORGIND as it is a company announcement
  • This moneycontrol article doesn't appear to mention the company
  • This deccanchronicle article is a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This ndtv article fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on the MD to provide quotations and facts.
  • This thehindubusinessline article is a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This UdaipurTimes article is a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This amarujala article is a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This indiatimes article looks at the coaching industry and mentions the company and gets a quote from the MD. The article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is only mentioned in passing and fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on quotations and facts from the company
  • The Book "The Wealth Wallas" fails WP:ORGIND since it is essentially an interview with the MD
  • This indiatimes article fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND since it only mentions the company in passing and then relies on quotations from the MD
  • This indiaeductiondiary article is PR and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This medianama article only namechecks the company and is not about the company but a partner company.
  • This indiatelevision article is a PR announcement and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This hindutimes article appears to be an announcement that the company won an award. This is the PR announcement. In my opinion, this award does not meet the criteria for establishing notability.
  • This thehindu article is unattributed and fails WP:ORGIND as it is an advertisement
  • This tributeindia article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it does not mention the company
• As I stated in my nomination, I do not believe any one of these sources meets the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is strange that an article is being nominated for deletion twice in a week. Its first speedy deletion along with FIITJEE nominated by User:Specialpage was quite suspicious, which violated Wikipedia's deletion policy and deletion process, even when article was not qualified for speedy deletion. Also, this case shows that how deletion administrator are irresponsible, they just deletion article even without checking whither article is suitable for speedy deletion or it's not. Just because a speedy deletion tag has been put, it does not mean, it should be checked nomination was right or just a vandalism.

Coming to the point raised by HighKing.

Most of the media coverage are from mainstream media houses of India. As you stated, should i consider, are all India media houses are bullshit? Are these popular India media houses just a pr or advertising agency? Nope, not at all. Possibly , few of them can be a pr piece, but not all. I do not agree with your statement and your analysis too, which looked quite biased. Your analysis consists some of the links which have not been added to the article. Some media coverage has quotes made by the MD, but none of them has been quoted in the Wikipedia article. And, all facts are verifiable by different media sources not by MD's quotes. Again check, none of the facts are verifiable by MD's words or interview. Facts are verifiable by news sources only.

The tribune article mentions company with name spelling Akash Institute. You say, this hindustantimes article appears to be an announcement that the company won an award, but by reading it's headline it can be clearly understood that award has been won. You quoted, This is the PR announcement. In my opinion, this award does not meet the criteria for establishing notability, but question is where did you this ref? It's not added in article. Please do not confuse editors by false statements. Coverage is significant in the quality and popular press in India. Indeed pass notability. If clean up is required do it.--Elton-Rodrigues 11:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• KEEP as per my vote at previous AFD.--Elton-Rodrigues 11:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you for responding and I will attempt to explain further with reference to your comments and queries. I agree that most of the media coverage is from mainstream media houses of India. But that doesn't automatically infer that the references meet the criteria for establishing notability - which is a little different than using sources to establish facts (where, in fact, company sources can be used in some circumstances). I've spent a lot of time looking at the sources - you say that "a few of them can be a pr piece" and I would say that, in fact, nearly all of them are PR pieces. Again I emphasise that we are *not* establishing facts but establishing notability and the criteria for establishing notability is specific about which sources are allowable and goes on to state that those sources must be intellectually independent and also states they must not rely on pieces supplied or written by the company or their officers.
  • I found the misspelled "Akash Institute" in the Tribune India page, thank you for pointing that out. I'm sure you agree that piece fails WP:ORGIND since is not an in-depth piece on the company and is an announcement concerning a visit by the MD.
  • Regarding the award, I also added in this link and this is the PR announcement about the winners. You ask "where did you this ref". I would have thought the answer was obvious - it is because I wanted to find out if it was a major award that could establish notability, therefore I googled the award to learn more about it. As you can see, it is a big stretch to say that Aakash Institute *won* the award seeing as "more than 100 Brand and Leader awards were felicitated" - for the same award! It is also notable that the award ceremony's keynote speaker was Mr. J. C. Chaudhry (the MD) and this (for me) calls into question the "intellectual independence" of the award. Given that there were over 100 "winners" of the same award, I do not consider this award as meeting the criteria for establishing notability. I have not sought to "confuse editors by false statements" but instead to provide *all* of the relevant information. In my opinion, by *not* properly researching the facts, the allegation of misleading editors should properly be laid at the feet of editors who add in information that misleads a reader into thinking that something (like an award) has far greater merit and significance that it has in reality.
  • I've no doubt you believe this topic is notable. If am happy to revisit my !vote if you can find sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- promotional WP:ADVOCACY. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @HighKing: Somewhere, in some point, i may agree with you. But still the article has received significant media coverage in mainstream media houses in India. Such media houses that includes The Hindu, Daily Bhaskar, The Hindu Business Line, Business Standard, India Today, NDTV, The Times of India, The Economic Times and Hindustan Times are considered quite reliable sources. It's still surprising for me that it can'be considered reliable in your opinion. An article at Business Standard reported that the institute is bullshit about its online offering. If all refs are just a pr piece, why do Business Standard reported it bullshit about its online coaching. So, It proves all refs are not just a pr piece. So one thing is clear some of refs can be pr but not all refs. I don't find your statement justifiable.

• Can some other editor perform reliability check of these references added to to article from scratch and check if article is notable for Wikipedia inclusion?

• Do check some article, some of them have been edited or improved by me. Here FIITJEE, Resonance Kota, Career Point, Career Point University, and Vibrant Academy, Are reference of these article complying Wikipedia's policy?

• I have just researched more about the institute and found some controversy related to institute which i have added to the article. I have improved the article by removing unattributed news article and announcement related news. Please do check and if still problem is not fixed, please help the article to improve and comply it as per Wikipedia' s guidelines. --Elton-Rodrigues 13:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. This isn't what Wikipedia is for, and I'd die happy if companies would start catching on to that fact. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources just aren't independent enough to establish notability. I will ask @Anthony Appleyard:, the nominator of the previous AfD, to comment here as well. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• How independently notable or known-of are the events described in Aakash Institute#Controversy? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.