Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vibrant Academy (2nd nomination)

Vibrant Academy

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

Its an advertizement of a coaching center. There are millions of coaching centers in India, who prepares for Engineering entrance test, its one of them. The article is poorly cited the references. Wikipedia is not for advertisement of any shops/coaching center Jussychoulex (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page is an advert and the references don't contain any in depth information in reliable sources (most only mentioning Vibrant as one of a list or because a source went or works there, and one being student reviews). At the previous AfD DGG thought this was sufficiently in depth. I disagree, but am linking for fairness. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per above.-- Shivam Setu (U-T-C) 13:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nothing has changed since last AfD's consensus of keeping the article. The language of the article is not promotional to make it an advertisement. If having article on Wikipedia is advertisement, we have to delete whole WP and get going on other business. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the basic criteria of all articles:- significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. WP:Other stuff exists is no argument whatsoever. Arjayay (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TOI, Forbes, Telegraph are all reliable and independent unless you can prove they aren't. And who has given OSE as argument to keep? Also please sign your comments. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Significant, reliable and independent all have to be achieved at the same time - There is no merit in significant coverage in an unreliable source, or trivial coverage in a reliable one, but I see not you are not even tying to claim that any of the references are significant. As for OSE - you appear to be arguing that if we delete this, we have to delete other similar articles. - Arjayay (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has significant sources. Although if you are expecting a Oscar winning film to be made as Vibrant Life, you are expecting too much. This is significant enough for a tutorial class. If 2k+ students attend these classes, this class is bigger than many schools. & i didn't say we have to delete similar article. I said we have to delete whole Wikipedia if having an article is considered as advertisement. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the "significant sources" is that none of them are actually about Vibrant Academy or mention it more than in passing Neonchameleon (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In-depth coverage by national Hindi newspaper Dainik Bhaskar. [1] [2] [3] So i guess it passes WP:42 now. -- Shivam Setu (U-T-C) 06:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pure advertizement and Danik bhaskar is a local hindi newspaper. Strongly favout to delete this advertizement from the Wikipedia Jussychoulex (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]