Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majhighariani Institute of Technology and Science

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Majhighariani Institute of Technology and Science

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

Unreferenced. A search for significant coverage from independent reliable sources yielded essentially no references, suggesting that this college fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. The article content borders WP:CORPSPAM. ℯ xplicit 23:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with a page that collects schools in the area. No need to delete the whole and work that has gone into it. Schools themselves are notable places for many individuals and thus while not meeting the general guidelines for notability, provide their own notability.Egaoblai (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing notability. Please see WP:ORG, as an example. An organization has to be notable on its own, it doesn't inherit notability from the people who go there or the people who started it. Ifnord (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a higher education institute with accredited undergraduate and postgraduate degree programmes. We wouldn't dream of deleting an article about such an institution in the Anglophone West, so why do people want to delete an article about one in Orissa? Of course the article, like millions of others, needs improvement (not least by the removal of promotional content), but that is a reason for editing, not deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, even though it fails the general notability guidlines. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: Note that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is now argument to avoid in deletion discussions as a result of a February 2017 RfC. If a school does not meet the WP:GNG, it should be deleted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:V is satisfied which is a pillar policy, and this is enough to guarantee chances of an article; the promotionalism is not an unquestionably blatant concern and the claims of significance are enough to outweigh that. SwisterTwister talk 01:55, 18 September 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.