Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian School of Business

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 keep, with no-one claiming that Utcursch's research isn't sufficient to show notability (Diez2's claim isn't consistent with the number and breadth of sources cited). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asian School of Business

Asian School of Business (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:SCHOOL. Does not meet any of the requirements of WP:SCHOOL, and does not mention any history of the school. This should be deleted. Diez2 02:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — Reads like self-promotion, very low hits on Google. Possible advertisement. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 03:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:SCHOOL, advertisement. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 08:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 11:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It looks genuine, but it's a new start-up with little visibility or notability. It doesn't seem to be accredited yet: I'm ready to change my mind to keep if it is one of the first in India to gain international accreditation, like AACSB.--Mereda 11:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC) ::
• Comment. It is not a primary/secondary school -- it is a management institute. I am not sure about the accredition or recognition. But the institute received wide press coverage in major Indian newspapers including The Hindu[1][2][3] and The Times of India[4]. Also [5][6][7] utcursch | talk 14:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep The school meets WP:SCHOOL requirements. Specifically: "The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself." This is shown by the newspaper articles cited by User:Utcursch.These alone are enough to make it notable.CraigMonroe 20:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• WP:SCHOOL says that the school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial works. Utcursch only cites one article and the school's official website. Diez2 22:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Go back and look. He cited eight articles. None of which were the school's website. 4 were from newspapers in India, and one was from Yahoo news. The others were from various news sources. None were the school's website. Wouldn't this be multiple sources? 67.162.212.254 01:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- please review the speedy keep criteria- the nominator has not withdrawn the vote, there have been delete votes, the nomination is not clear vandalism, it is in the correct process, the nominator is not banned, and the article is neither a guideline nor linked to by the main page. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• keep We are possibly being more stringent differently because not familiar. DGG 22:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as per above. Highfructosecornsyrup 00:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- please review the speedy keep criteria- notability is not a qualifying reason for a speedy keep vote, and per above. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This really isn't a "school", it's an unaccredited business college and that's a messy area. Counting the clippings isn't the only way to make a judgement. This new college only has 100(?) students and there's a concern about advertising this business for its ambitions, not its achievements. I looked at the press coverage and I wasn't convinced by it at first glance - it's launch publicity, it's uncritical, and it's not in-depth; though I accept that they include bylined items in serious newspapers. If we imagine the college closing today, would it be worth an encyclopedia article on any grounds?? (except comprehensive coverage of all business colleges in India!) Would it be notable in the enduring record of the field? --Mereda 08:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the reason I've not voted Keep yet. If it is accredited or recognized, I will vote Keep, but there is no indication of that. News coverage is mostly due to NRIs supporting the college. utcursch | talk 10:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as the college has generated verifiable sources for itself, what difference does it make if it's an accredited school or not? Unaccredited schools make news too, and unaccredited schools can be notable too. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence of notability or remarkability provided in the article or in a cursory search for information on the subject. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep especially per utcursch's top-notch research. I have no idea what the accreditation regime is like in India, but the fact that a school is accredited does not make it notable, and the fact that a school is not accredited does not make it non-notable. Simply put, there is no Wikipedia policy that determines notability based on accreditation. The sources are independent, verifiable and from reliable sources in full compliance with WP:V and WP:RS, all of which establish notability under either WP:SCHOOL or WP:CORP. Alansohn 04:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

weak keep almost full keep. The sources all seem to be more about what the school will be when built and don't have much in the way of detail. However, since the school is sourced in a wide geographic area and has enough data to write a decent size stub, I'm inclined to keep. (and if anyone cares, I think it passes criterion 1 of WP:SCHOOLS3). JoshuaZ 04:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Was this article rewritten recently? I only ask because the article I'm looking at passes WP:SCHOOLS with flying colors; well sourced, well written, and obviously notable to the surrounding community. Silensor 07:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Mereda[8] and User:Alansohn[9] fixed it. 220.227.179.4 16:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment That is my view. CraigMonroe 22:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep If anyone recognises my name from other school afds, they'd be stunned by my suggestion it be kept but this one actually deserves to be included. It needs many things added to it to make it an encyclopedia article and not an advertising run, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but all that said I think any (attempt at a) world class post-graduate school of management built for $3.6m in a developing country is notable. India has a veritable tsunami of schools of cautious notability outside of India but I don't think this is an example due to the hubub it caused. It's unaccredited but I imagine a lot of Indian schools don't have the same accreditation standards as schools in developed countries and generally across the world business colleges are less likely to be accredited then other similar institutions. Per a couple of comments by people about it being ambitious rather than established, I agree, but it's VERY ambitious. Consider if a plan was afoot and the groundwork laid for a 2000 storey tower made out of diamonds in Australia, it's not established rather ambitious, but boy is it ambitious! Therefore it'd be worthy of an article. I think this is the same sort of thing.•Elomis• 23:07, 3 December 2006 (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.