 | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2016 May 18. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. Discounting "keeps" that make no policy-based arguments and low-editcount accounts as possible meat- or sockpuppets. Sandstein 07:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Allen Career Institute
- Allen Career Institute ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
@ 103.6.159.93: queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 23:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hard to say without Indian sources, but from a general look it seems legitimate enough. I would say KEEP Deathlibrarian ( talk) 00:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. At best it still fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. At worst a violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. T.C.Haliburton talk nerdy to me 04:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - The article should not be deleted, as it is significantly covered in media. Also, the institute is ranked no.1 in coaching institutes of Kota, Rajasthan, the coaching capital of India. Other cram schools in city such as Vibrant Academy, Bansal Classes also have their articles (which are below in ranking than Allen), so this article is surely liable to and be KEpt on Wikipedia. In my view, it does not seem to be promotional but provide general information through reliable sources.❤ TrendSPLEND ✉ 12:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Notable organisation, given the number of secondary sources available. There is also a firm AfD precedence at keeping articles on Indian coaching institutes ( AfD 1, AfD 2, AfD 3, AfD 4, AfD 5). A bit of a promotional tone is not a reason for deletion. Deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP. 103.6.159.91 ( talk) 10:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- You seem to be arguing that because we keep one, we should keep them all. That only applies to schools that grant degrees, not schools which prepare people to take examination to e be admitted into schools from which they will eventually get degrees.
DGG (
talk ) 17:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am not arguing what you say I am arguing. You seem to be referring to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which is not a part of my !vote. I was just citing a precedence, in accordance with WP:OSE which says that "arguments ... that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted ... may be effective arguments ...". Nevertheless, the main point is that there are too many secondary sources. 103.6.159.89 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- You seem to be arguing that because we keep one, we should keep them all. That only applies to schools that grant degrees, not schools which prepare people to take examination to e be admitted into schools from which they will eventually get degrees.
DGG (
talk ) 17:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Good organisation,One of the Reputed Institute in India. It is very famous institute head office based in Kota , Rajasthan. • satya_satapathy ( talk) 15:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Promotional.
Shyamsunder (
talk) 20:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- WP:SOFIXIT. 103.6.159.76 ( talk) 10:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and Draft instead because this still seems troubled enough to where mainspace is not acceptable yet. Delete and improve before moving to mainspace again, SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The article have good reference and I think the institution is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, it should be improved to take away the promotional languague but beside that its a good article. Wizardlis54 ( talk) 10:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete insufficient evidence of notability, and very clear promotional intent, as shown by the achievements section, which has been repeatedly removed but restored. The argument given above is that such achievements are considered significant in India: so they are, they are considered significant by prospective students, and an article written to appeal to prospective students is advertising, not encyclopedic writing. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia . (and we probably should reconsider the other such schools also). DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- The page has changed a lot over the past 3 days that hopefully clears away most of the promotionalism. You might want to consider the recent changes - the Courses section was removed and a gist of it was added to the lead, the Achievements section was trimmed removing the achievements by alumni not related to what allen does. The current version is the cleanest and least promotional. 103.6.159.66 ( talk) 17:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
KEEP- Now, the page should be kept.❤ TrendSPLEND ✉ 12:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Striking vote and already voted above. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 07:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- KEEP The article doesnt seems to be promotional in its current version, and it seems to be clearly notable. Masterofroks ( talk) 12:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- KEEP I have just made some changes to make it more clean and less promotional, i vote keep. Fluffyxxx ( talk) 22:07, 1 April 2016 (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.
| This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2016 May 18. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. Discounting "keeps" that make no policy-based arguments and low-editcount accounts as possible meat- or sockpuppets. Sandstein 07:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Allen Career Institute
- Allen Career Institute ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
@ 103.6.159.93: queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 23:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hard to say without Indian sources, but from a general look it seems legitimate enough. I would say KEEP Deathlibrarian ( talk) 00:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. At best it still fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. At worst a violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. T.C.Haliburton talk nerdy to me 04:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - The article should not be deleted, as it is significantly covered in media. Also, the institute is ranked no.1 in coaching institutes of Kota, Rajasthan, the coaching capital of India. Other cram schools in city such as Vibrant Academy, Bansal Classes also have their articles (which are below in ranking than Allen), so this article is surely liable to and be KEpt on Wikipedia. In my view, it does not seem to be promotional but provide general information through reliable sources.❤ TrendSPLEND ✉ 12:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Notable organisation, given the number of secondary sources available. There is also a firm AfD precedence at keeping articles on Indian coaching institutes ( AfD 1, AfD 2, AfD 3, AfD 4, AfD 5). A bit of a promotional tone is not a reason for deletion. Deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP. 103.6.159.91 ( talk) 10:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- You seem to be arguing that because we keep one, we should keep them all. That only applies to schools that grant degrees, not schools which prepare people to take examination to e be admitted into schools from which they will eventually get degrees.
DGG (
talk ) 17:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am not arguing what you say I am arguing. You seem to be referring to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which is not a part of my !vote. I was just citing a precedence, in accordance with WP:OSE which says that "arguments ... that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted ... may be effective arguments ...". Nevertheless, the main point is that there are too many secondary sources. 103.6.159.89 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- You seem to be arguing that because we keep one, we should keep them all. That only applies to schools that grant degrees, not schools which prepare people to take examination to e be admitted into schools from which they will eventually get degrees.
DGG (
talk ) 17:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Good organisation,One of the Reputed Institute in India. It is very famous institute head office based in Kota , Rajasthan. • satya_satapathy ( talk) 15:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Promotional.
Shyamsunder (
talk) 20:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- WP:SOFIXIT. 103.6.159.76 ( talk) 10:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and Draft instead because this still seems troubled enough to where mainspace is not acceptable yet. Delete and improve before moving to mainspace again, SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The article have good reference and I think the institution is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, it should be improved to take away the promotional languague but beside that its a good article. Wizardlis54 ( talk) 10:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete insufficient evidence of notability, and very clear promotional intent, as shown by the achievements section, which has been repeatedly removed but restored. The argument given above is that such achievements are considered significant in India: so they are, they are considered significant by prospective students, and an article written to appeal to prospective students is advertising, not encyclopedic writing. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia . (and we probably should reconsider the other such schools also). DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- The page has changed a lot over the past 3 days that hopefully clears away most of the promotionalism. You might want to consider the recent changes - the Courses section was removed and a gist of it was added to the lead, the Achievements section was trimmed removing the achievements by alumni not related to what allen does. The current version is the cleanest and least promotional. 103.6.159.66 ( talk) 17:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
KEEP- Now, the page should be kept.❤ TrendSPLEND ✉ 12:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Striking vote and already voted above. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 07:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- KEEP The article doesnt seems to be promotional in its current version, and it seems to be clearly notable. Masterofroks ( talk) 12:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- KEEP I have just made some changes to make it more clean and less promotional, i vote keep. Fluffyxxx ( talk) 22:07, 1 April 2016 (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.