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. There are have been very few relevant arguments made on this AfD; most of what I'm reading is either "keep because it's notable", or "delete because it's not notable". Those are not arguments, those should be the conclusions you reach from the arguments you put forward (which should involve an evaluation of the article in question, and the relevant sources provided to establish notability). I don't think continuing this discussion here will be productive, so I'm closing the AfD as no consensus; if someone wants to renominate the article later, I have no problem with that, but urge all involved read our guidelines on notability and arguments to avoid. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Aakash Institute[edit]

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

Courtesy nomination - awaiting statement from nominator (see page history). - filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aakash_Institute&diff=544363669&oldid=544363160 The above link shows promotional ads being added to the article on a regular basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aakash_Institute&diff=544341060&oldid=544326570 Above link shows how some users are concerned about not mentioning anything negative even though it cites proper proofs. This shows the promotional nature of the institute's article in question. Hence its better to delete it to keep up with the neutrality principle of wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skullbaron (talk • contribs) 13:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

which means aesl does not and hence can be purged. Skullbaron (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aakash_Institute&diff=544363669&oldid=544363160 which you have treated as advertisement is MERGED with Aakash Institute after AFD discussion by Northamerica1000. See article talk page for Full AFD discussion.

Secondly, the other link content which you have mentioned is added by same user from different IP addresses to promote his website and to be popular by his controversy. Lots of logged in users have deleted that content treating wrong thing but every time that particular content is added from different IP addresses only. Satya563 (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link mentioned shows authentic government of India court case document PDF. I don't see why you think its promotional. Be neutral and accept face instead of trying to hide it up in a neutral forum. You can do the cover ups when you give newspaper ads of the institute. Wikipedia is not a brand promoter. -skullbaron

Dear skullbaron, Please don't delete any content before reaching this debate at any consensus. You are the only user after those IP addresses who deleted already merged content (after AFD consensus) and protecting & promoting for using Wikipedia for popularity. Wikipedia is not a place of getting popularity. Satya563 (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no promotion content and what has been listed is not baseless, false accusations. If you feel it should not be listed, then this page will meet with the same fate as ANTHE which coincidentally you vehemently tried defending till the admin decided to delete it and only as an alternate after your pleading decided to merge it with this instead. This does not mean you can continue with the same advertising here as well. If this is allowed then bansal classes may use wiki for filling up entries to students through wikipedia, FIITJEE may start listing its wikipedia entry as their official website etc. NO. Wikipedia is not a brand promoter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skullbaron (talk • contribs) 15:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, I understand but Wikipedia is not a place of War between Aakash Institute and fiitjee. All IP addresses through which Aakash Institute content was deleted are either belongs to Chennai region or Gurgaon region where fiitjee have its operational setup. Admin can verify it easily by IP addresses. Please don't use Wikipedia as a tool of dealing personal controversies. Let it decide by the Indian court, not at Wikipedia. Satya563 (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your grammar shows how incapable you are of authoring and editing wikipedia articles. First learn proper English grammar before writing articles here.Skullbaron (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to divert the discussion. It is not an unbiased attitude. Satya563 (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I said IS relevant discussion. A person whose grammar is not proper should try improving that before writing/correcting wiki articles. Go thru the guidelines I posted in the talk page of the article to know what constitutes advertising according to wikipedia's policy. Skullbaron

Keep - the article section ANTHE already discussed and merged as per consensus. So, no question of deletion. Independent and reliable sources/references are well enough to keep this article. 115.249.111.106 (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - Just because it cites sources need not mean advertising should be allowed. 112.79.40.203 (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a highly promotional article about a component of Aakash Educational Services Limited, also up for AfD. Even if the main article is kept, there is no need for a merge or a redirect--the main article has more than enough promotional content already. the attempt to get two articles when at most one is sufficient is a clear sign of promotional intent, and needs to be discouraged. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As we go through the both articles Aakash Institute and Aakash Educational Services Limited, we find that Aakash Institute started in 1988 and it was created at Wikipedia on July 05, 2011. Aakash Educational Services Limited was formed in 2008, under which all 3 wings (Medical wing, Engineering Wing and Foundations wing) were decided to run and it was created on Wikipedia on August 16, 2012 (approx. one year later from Aakash Institute article). By searching on web, we clearly find that Aakash Institute has more references and deep reach in front of people while it deals only with Medical wing of Aakash Educational Services Limited. Soonyam.arya (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC) — Soonyam.arya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - if Aakash institute is not part of aesl, all references to it should be deleted from aesl. If it is, there is no need for a desperate article on it. A section in aesl will do. Skullbaron (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep who says Aakash Institute is not a part of AESL (Aakash Educational Services Limited)? Aakash Institute runs Medical wing of AESL and a part of it. Satya563 (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC) — Satya563 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Delete~~ - my point exactly. If its part of aesl, there is no need for a separate article on this. Skullbaron (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~- Skullbaron, you are trying to confuse every one. You are not sure what you are saying. At AESL article, you firstly said to delete AESL and MERGE in Aakash Institute. Here again, you are saying, if Aakash Institute is part of AESL, then delete Aakash Institute and have only AESL article. Keep it in mind, Aakash Institute is from 1988 and AESL is from 2008. Satya563 (talk) 08:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - my point is merge both into a single article. Which is to remain, which is to go, let the moderators decide. But, two articles on an unimportant coaching institute are not needed. For definitions of unimportant and notability, check the wiki links for same. Skullbaron (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~- Skullbaron, initially you proposed for deletion of article AESL. And also supports for deletion of Aakash Institute. See your all previous wrong votes for both the articles. Now you are saying for MERGE. So, vote your opinion as a MERGE, not as a Delete. Cut your all old opinions. Satya563 (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Satya563 and Skullbaron, please only use "Keep" or "Delete" once, subsequent responses should not repeat your recommendation in this manner. I've struck the duplicates so as to avoid any confusion. - Sudo Ghost 20:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Generally notable. – SJ + 02:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable article, no doubt. TrueBisector (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — TrueBisector (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - doesn't seem to be notable enough. Avantador.driver (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — Avantador.driver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep as I search on web, Aakash Institute is successfully running by last 25 years and also having much notable references, the article should be kept. Malla.nepal (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — Malla.nepal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep and need to improve, I don't think any notability issue with this article. Rajaniphysio (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — Rajaniphysio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

merge - with aesl. Melcro.minion (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — Melcro.minion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep the article should be restored with ANTHE section as this section was merged in "Aakash Institute" after AFD discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ANTHE) which can be found at article's talk page. Sssbk.in (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — Sssbk.in (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete- "They have a habit of claiming that toppers studied in their institute." viz. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-07-10/india/28279154_1_coaching-institutes-cbi-inquiry-hrd-ministry . What the Indian HRD (Human Resource Development) Minister said then, about such companies making exaggerated claims, hits the nail on the head. At one time, we had three Wiki articles on the activities of this company, created by the same person (ANTHE has since been merged here). That, in itself, is an exaggeration of the standing, importance or notabilty of this organisation. All in all, this amounts to persistent overhyped promotion of this company. One is left with the impression, it is just another company of its kind, whatever its claims and the claims of its promoters here.--Zananiri (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zananiri, I go through the whole matter. Aakash Institute is running from more than 20 years and it is a single case since its inception which arises till date and still it is pending in Indian court from more than two and half years. An institute which is having more than 60,000 student base and providing its services to thousands of students every year, just on the basis of this single case, how can we generalized this view that it is a habit of claiming toppers. And it was not first case when Aakash Institute's student (either Regular or Distance education) topped medical/engineering exams. What HRD ministry said, was referred to all tutoring service providers. But in this case, the two were involved. Satya563 (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks due to whichever admin monitored and identified SPAs. Interesting to note that the article author's account falls in this category. All the more reason for suspecting brand promotion. 122.164.134.211 (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IP address:122.164.134.211, now you did improvements at AESL (Aakash Educational Services Limited) which you could do before AFD consensus of that article. But you guys tried to move AFD discussion in a confusing state. Satya563 (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dear SudoGhost, you placed an unsigned SPAa tags to all Wikipedia users who are having opinions against you. Please read the top tag placed where it is clearly mentioned that to post sign after every edit and here you are trying to hide your identity.

You raised question to all Wikipedia users who voted to keep this article but you haven't posted any SPAs at these users (Avantador.driver and 112.79.40.203) as their opinions matches to you. While, the same factor applies to them also. WHY ? Satya563 (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't placed an opinion on this page one way or the other, so that accusation seems unnecessarily defensive. I placed an SPA tag on editors that have very few edits, nearly all of which are related to this subject, and not just ones that gave "keep" rationales. You also do not sign SPA tags, but it was worth pointing out that this discussion is over-saturated with editors that are way to close to this topic and have only edited topics very strongly related to this article. - Sudo Ghost 03:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never say anything without any material ground. You were the nominator of ANTHE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ANTHE) article and you already voted as a Delete for AESL (Aakash Educational Services Limited) article. Here your activity like posting SPAs at all "Keep" and ignoring all "Delete/Remove" opinions while same factor applies on both type of users, shows your opinion. Satya563 (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You "never say anything without any material ground", except this time you fell short. For one, each article is judged on its own merits, so it doesn't matter that I opined that other articles may or may not be notable, I don't judge articles based on other articles, so that's an accusation quite without merit. Secondly, you've twice said that I "posted SPAs at all the keep", but that's false, as a quick glance above will show. I tagged SPAs, and certainly not all keep rationales. You also said I "ignored all Delete/Remove", but that's also false. I tagged SPAs. Including one of the "merge" rationales. The fact that most of the SPAs, including yourself, gave keep rationales is again immaterial to that. The IPs are quite obviously transparent in the nature of being an IP editor, so it would be extremely redundant to tag an IP address in that way, as well as accounts with red linked talk pages. - Sudo Ghost 04:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now you placed SPAa at user Avantador.driver also. Satya563 (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as Aakash Institute is a 24-25 year old (since 1988) and reputed institute in the field of coaching/tutoring domain in India having sufficient references and notability, I don't find any reason to delete it. Harendragusain (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strongly recommend to delete - even IITs which this institute supposedly coaches students for don't feel they are important enough to maintain multiple articles. Not notable enough. Hellbaron (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After recommendation here, you cleared your own Talk-Page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hellbaron). I refer it to admin. Satya563 (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is perfectly acceptable to do, and what they removed from their talk page has absolutely nothing to do with this AfD's topic. When you respond to each and every delete rationale by going through their contribs and attacking the writer without addressing the substance of their argument, it actually hurts your position because it makes it seem as though you have nothing to support your argument, instead resorting to ad hominem seemingly for lack of anything better. Sudo Ghost 03:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being as an author of this article, it is my duty and responsibility to post my views as a reply/comment if someone asks me to clarify the things or if I think that there is a need to post clarification. Posing responses as a comment should not be treated as attack. My positive responses and meaningful arguments have saved AESL article at Wikipedia. I never used abusive or provocative language at Wikipedia. But, users/admins can realize it that the below IP user directly appeal to another user to discuss further while he can do the same himself. Satya563 (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "positive" nor "meaningful", it is one step short of personal attacks and it not permitted on Wikipedia. You responding to each and every comment and attacking the editors themselves as opposed to even beginning to addressing any issues raised is tenacious and has the opposite effect of what you're attempting. It doesn't make the article seem notable, it makes it look like the article is indeed plagued with advertisements and tenacious editors that attack others when they have nothing else to say. - Sudo Ghost 05:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - hey SudoGhost please tell Satya563 to discuss first what is being said and then analyze who said it. This habit of immediately saying 'this user said this...','it was posted from that IP' etc. is getting annoying. 122.164.134.211 (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per DGG. There is no doubt that this article is plagued by promotionalism and when the article was nominated for deletion, suddenly half a dozen SPAs came out of nowhere, but without actually giving any rationale that doesn't fall within WP:ATA. Even if those issues could be resolved, the article is also redundant with another article already in existence, that already contains the same content. The subject is not notable enough for its own subject when there is already an article that already covers the subject. I wanted to see how the discussion panned out, but I don't see a single keep rationale that addresses this issue. There's nothing to merge because it's already at the main article, and "running for 20-25 years" is not a reason to keep an article. A slight notability does not warrant an entirely separate and redundant article when the content already exists on Wikipedia, so it's not like the removal of this article is removing anything from Wikipedia that isn't at the main article for the subject. - Sudo Ghost 05:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this link will provide details on why this article need not be kept even if its running for 25 years. For kind attention of whoever made that point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FACTORS#Factors_that_do_not_automatically_render_notability 112.79.42.45 (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aakash Educational Services Limited#Aakash Institute all meaningful material is already there. J04n(talk page) 14:31, 23 March 2013 (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.