Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maharana Pratap Engineering College (2nd 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. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maharana Pratap Engineering College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A private, for-profit, tertiary educational institution that does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS. The sources found during a WP:BEFORE do not satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH as they consist of paid databases and primary sources. No inherent notability. VV 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. VV 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. VV 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was speedy keep. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2014-07✓ speedy keep

• Comment the reason for speedy keep last AFD was because the nom did not mention the reason for nomination. The issues mentioned above persisted even before. VV 04:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails both NORG as well as GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete since it's a clear failure of the notability guidelines due to the utterly lacking existence of sourcing, good or otherwise, about it. Unless someone can come up with WP:THREE references. I highly doubt it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While the one source and lack of anything demonstrating notability does not always mean an article belongs in the dustbin, this article being a single (grammatically questionable) paragraph does not inspire confidence. jp×g 07:12, 10 May 2021 (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.