Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Leather Research Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. Surely the best thing is for someone to move all of the stubs linked from CSIR India, including this one, into the parent article. Chick Bowen 06:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Central Leather Research Institute

Central Leather Research Institute (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

I give up. Read it and decide for yourself... YechielMan 02:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Extremely Weak Keep. This article from the Indian financial press (WARNING: Very high density of popups) does mention it, so it might just have a chance of scraping into WP:CORP. Although - "networking nationally and internationally for evolving a paradigm shift in the sector"? Not a phrase that immediately suggests notability. Tevildo 02:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Another article. Different publication, but the above warning still applies. Tevildo 02:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Normally weak keep. Notable as part of Indian govt body CSIR India. Could be merged into CSIR India. John Vandenberg 04:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Will change to keep if notability asserted and demonstrated, which presently is not the case. Leather research is in my personal view not intrinsically notable.--Anthony.bradbury 23:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The CSIR is notable, as the National research organization corresponding to the NSF in the US. 17 of the 39 branches have WP articles, and someone knowledgable & who knows WP well enough to write appropriate articles should get to the others. To say that Leather research is not notable for intrinsic reasons is a POV. To not accord the major institutions of other countries status is chauvenism. I have added links to projects, including those from third parties. A simple google search was enough to find them. DGG 21:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Aren't you virtuous. Delete as a non-notable organisation. Eusebeus 21:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Vjdchauhan 06:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete unless notability asserted and facts referenced. ← ANAS Talk? 03:07, 18 January 2007 (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.