Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rai University

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 merge to Rai Foundation. The big issue here is lack of independent, reliable, sources; The Economist certainly fits that description, but it's only one, and only mentions Rai in passing. The consensus from the arguments presented is clearly either delete or merge, but there's debate about whether the only reasonable merge target is a viable subject itself. I'm going to call this a merge, and if anybody wants to pursue deletion of Rai Foundation, they can raise that question at another AfD. Also, it was not clear if the two articles were merged, which direction made the most sense. If somebody feels the merged article should exist under this title, instead of the other way around, that's a question for normal editorial discretion (but discuss on the article talk page and get consensus). -- RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rai University

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

Contested A7 speedy/G11 speedy. I did a quick search on it and haven't found enough material to decide one way or another. Moving to XfD for debate/consensus. Tawker (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. It appears to be an advertisement of a private university and the university itself a non-notable, insignificant. Logical1004 (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it's an appalling article, but Afd is not cleanup. It appears to be an accredited, degree-awarding university. We invariably keep those. Being private is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rai Foundation. Logical1004 (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, this article has little redeeming value, but the subject is notable. Perhaps the university is more notable than the foundation, if that's the case than we could merge and then move. Elassint ^Hi 17:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having worked on other university pages before, my only question is this: Where are the notable, third-party sources for the Rai Foundation? I'm having trouble locating anything besides the same press text. Neither of the articles seem to have enough reason to pass WP:N because it's all from primary sources. But that's not what's been nominated here, and thus I'll say Merge with Rai Foundation, with the caveat that the new article needs some SERIOUS improvement. GRUcrule (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note — While looking through the two talk pages to see if there was any consensus on the merge propositions, I noticed Jimbo had made a comment on it several years back. It turns out that one of the prior versions of the page (i.e., a non-glaringly-G11 version) alludes to both positive coverage (e.g., by The Economist) as well as controversy. It's obviously since been whitewashed, but I reasoned that since a relist is probably in order anyway (consensus isn't exactly crystal-clear currently), it might be a good idea for some other people to review the older versions on the page. --slakr^\ talk / 03:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : I agree the article is having notability issues. So we can delete both the articles or merge Rai Foundation into this one and make it a better article, if that can be done with reliable sources. But presently, I am unable to find any reliable sources. The only sources that I found were from the Rai University website. But the sole reference cna't be a basis for a whole article. There should be verifiable sources. So I would say delete both the articles. Logical1004 (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable university Uncletomwood (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2014 (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.