Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vidyamandir Classes

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, original author now supports deletion and no-one suggests keeping this. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vidyamandir Classes

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

Unable to locate significant independent reliable source coverage to establish notability. This article was speedied, and the speedy was removed by the original author. After it was automatically replaced a new anon IP then removed it. The article was then PRODed and a new account removed the PROD, with none of the issues addressed. So as it stands this appears to be a non-notable private test training program with no significant reliable source coverage available. Note, there is also a pending sock investigation here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vivek_Rai. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this laughably amateur attempt at self-promotion. Nothing says "we're nobodies" like adding a fractured-grammar article on yourself to Wikipedia. Wny do people insist on embarassing themselves like this? EEng (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 (spam). Article is already tagged. As the original speedy deletion tagger, I endorse this solution. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the speedy. Sure, the article is bad, but in my opinion it's not irredeemably promotional. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I would make my replies to everyone in turn.

ConcernedVancouverite : I agree that the article lacks reliable external links and verifiable sources, however as I had originally added the tag 'Under Construction' for the article, I would have searched and added the necessary data at the suitable time. I could not sit all the time here. So an explanation that it cites no reference and hence should be deleted in vague.

To save wasting everyone's time, don't add articles to Wikipedia until you have sources. Then we don't have to listen to you say that you'll add sources when you get around to it. EEng (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EEng : According to what you mention, the following articles too are liable to be deleted - FIITJEE, Aakash Institute, and many more which I haven't seen till now. I do know my responsibility when I create articles. This is not, I assure you done for any PROMOTIONAL manner. I found that the article was requested Here , so I thought to create one. Please have a kind look at my contributions where I have created and contributed to articles in various fields. I have no personal or commercial interest in creating an article for this institute. And if you find any problem with the text grammar, you're welcome to show your skills as I belong to a non-English country.

I checked out the two articles you mentioned, and one of them should definitely be deleted as non-notable, and the other likely the same. EEng (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would try to show 4-5 more such articles which should be deleted. VIVEK RAI : Friend? 05:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that the article doesn't contains any such text which can be termed promotional. I took a very high precaution while creating it, since it has been deleted twice earlier. As the sock puppetry investigation, I'm a student and I do not have the time,nor the strength to waste my energy on those useless things to promote anything. I know very sensibly that Wikipedia is not for promotion. I assure that you won't find any such evidence against me. Kindly take appropriate action against those who are involved in such activities and try not to harass the genuine editors.Thanks VIVEK RAI : Friend? 08:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that your intentions are good, but an article about a non-notable commercial enterprise is per se promotional just by its very existence. As already mentioned, if you find sources before creating the article then you won't get into this trouble again. EEng (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sources thing. But the comment that the enterprise is a non notable - I wouldn't agree. It might be non notable for you or people abroad India, but not here, especially in context of Entrance Examinations in India, IIT JEE,AIEEE and others. VIVEK RAI : Friend? 05:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTABILITY before commenting again. EEng (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Dennis. Most of the refs on the net are PR releases, not notable, spam. GregJackP Boomer! 00:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to work upon your source requests soon. VIVEK RAI : Friend? 05:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer support my earlier Keep recommendation for reasons that can't be disclosed. Please Delete VIVEK RAI : Friend? 08:29, 30 May 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.