Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Textile Technology and Management

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. Guerillero | My Talk 02:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Textile Technology and Management

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

Gnews never heard of this organization. And the article itself has zero refs. This is the 2-year anniversary of it being tagged for deficiency in notability. Created by what appears to be an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ keep: This is a notable institute and has a lot of coverage in print media. Has been listed on a regularly used Pakistani education related website [1], has online media coverage [2] [3] and most importantly, has print RS coverage [4] both in Urdu and English. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, trivial passing non-substantial coverage does not confer notability status; nor does non-RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "sources" are either listings or promotional material. Notability can't be established by this kind of material. No RS in two years.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete partly on the assumption that the Keep-er above has offered the best sources he or she can. EEng (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by TopGun. Mar4d (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those sources do you views as being RS sources, and of those which do you believe constitute substantial coverage of the institute? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of TopGun's sources establish notability. We have a directory listing, a blog, some sort of website where the sole content is an image that won't load, and a newspaper advert. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another RS [5] and then we have WP:NHS to consider. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq raised questions above as to whether what you cited previously as RSs were in fact RSs. What are your thoughts on that? Also, as to this reference, it appears to be a passing reference -- the institute is listed as one in a series of "affiliates". I'm not sure that adds to the requisite substantial coverage to pass GNG. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad for missing that one of them was a blog. The advertisement pretty much verifies the existence of the institute which will get it quite some grounds for a 'keep' per WP:NHS and another site that is listed is one of the much referred sites for the education related information (atleast in Pakistan) and seems RS to me. The latest I added is surely a reliable newspaper(more than 70 years old) and does specifically mention the university but then again, general notability is pretty much covered in print media (which I do not have access to - so I should rather use 'highly likely' covered in print media). --lTopGunl (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you need to consider NHS, a non-binding and regularly disputed {{essay}}. Specifically, you need to consider its third paragraph: "However, this is not a loophole in Wikipedia's guidelines or policies. Like any other topic, articles on schools must be able to meet notability standards, such as those at Wikipedia: Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) specifically. Unreferenced material can and should be challenged up to and including removal from the article. Efforts are much better put into locating reliable sources about the school and improving the article based on those sources."

Being a school for teenagers or adults does not exempt the school from the need to have sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2012 (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.