Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambition Law Institute

: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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

=[[:Ambition Law Institute]]=

{{ns:0|O}}

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Ambition Law Institute}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ambition_Law_Institute Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Ambition Law Institute}})

No idea as to how this passes either our general notability guideline or the subject-specific guideline, either. ∯WBGconverse 13:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I would oppose deletion on the grounds that articles about universities are always notable, regardless of where they happen to be in the world, unless one wishes to argue that certain countries aren't notable enough for inclusion within encyclopedic content, which I might add is a racist proposition, in my opinion. 71.91.178.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete – Though there are five sources (most appear to be independent), the sources don't seem to be entirely notable or sufficient for WP:GNG. I'd support a merge to the creatorfounder of the corporation given that at least some (obviously not all) information is verifiable. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 02:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • :{{u|Redditaddict69}}, umm......
  • :
  • :The first source [https://www.legalbites.in/about-legal-bites/ fails] WP:NEWSORG, [https://www.legalbites.in/advertise/ claims to feature sponsored interviews] and allows user to submit content.
  • ::Every possible manner in which a source can be branded as unreliable.
  • :
  • :The second source is a book published by themselves.
  • ::Yeah, they've got a press.
  • :
  • :Third fits the definition of link-spam.
  • ::Probably, the one who was paid to create this had a side-job of being the SEO-guy of Stulity.com.who knows?!
  • :
  • :Fourth one is an interview of a topper of a state-judicial-service exam in a quasi reliable source.
  • ::She took classes from our concerned subject.That's it, in entirety with not an iota of contribution to any notability.
  • :
  • :Fifth one mentions the director of the institute to have organised a lecture in a private university.
  • :
  • :Also, merging the information to the creator of the page which is an user-account will be a bit troublesome:-) For the record, you probably meant the founder of the institute who is simultaneously up for it's trial by fire.
  • :
  • :Best, ∯WBGconverse 12:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

::*Yes, I did mean founder of this. And I guess I didn't check the sources thorough enough. Definitely a strong Delete now. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

----

: The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.