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 redirect to Bhadohi. SoWhy 18:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institute of Carpet Technology, Bhadohi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Small institute with a dozen professors. There is a bit of coverage here and there, but it's all either routine, passing mention, or local. Much of it is along the lines of "So-and-so from IICT, and now lets talk about something else entirely". Maybe there's better sources in non-English languages, but I'm in no place to find them if there are. TimothyJosephWood 12:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect - I did a little bit of research to look for newspaper mentions regarding this institute and I was able to come up with some information which may be useful for this discussion:

1. I found two mentions in The Times of India - [1] (2010, doesn't appear to be of much importance) and [2] (2016, starts off with mention of the institute but wanders off talking about an 'expo' towards the end of the article). As for any other newspaper mentions, I failed to find them (even amongst non-English ones).
2. The institute is recognized by the Joint Seat Allocation Authority (an agency established by the Ministry of Human Resources Development of India) along with 97 other institutes (the list is here), many of which are notable and have Wikipedia articles of their own (digging a little deeper, I found that most of the 97 institutes have Wikipedia articles of their own, although some of them facing similar issues as this one, for example: Indian Institute of Information Technology, Ranchi and Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University but that can be resolved in their own deletion discussions).

It is my considered opinion that the second point alone cannot justify keeping the article, hence my vote for its deletion. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 11:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to "Redirect to Bhadohi" per my comments below. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 09:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect--To Bhadohi.Standard operating procedure.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't done any research here, so I'll remain neutral on the outcome. I just want to mention that Indian Institute of Carpet Technology, Bhadohi seems like such an unlikely search term that turning it into a redirect seems silly (on the other hand, WP:CHEAP). I see we already have Indian Institute of Carpet Technology which redirects here. Maybe move this title to there (to preserve the history), and let that be the redirect? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this technology college does exist. Here is Times of India (regional edition) coverage of a carpet industry trade fair hyping a campus expansion [3]. An article in The Hindu: "As unusual as it sounds, this institute has been set up by the Indian Ministry of Textiles. The Indian Institute of Carpet Technology (IICT) aims at supporting the carpet and allied textile industries by increasing skilled labourers and technical support. The syllabus of the programmes covers both practical as well as theoretical understanding of the process of dyeing, textile fibres, carpet washing, and so on. It also has a range of regular, distance and short-term courses." [4].

E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to Scholar many scholars are connected with it. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - To L3X1, I see 67 in total, which includes any mention whatsoever including citations, and as far as I can tell, exactly none that aren't simply mention of the name. WP:NORG and WP:GNG aren't WP:NPROF, and notability is not inherited, and certainly not from passing mention by others who are themselves apparently non-notable.

To E.M.Gregory: I don't think anyone is questioning whether it exists, but no company or organization is considered inherently notable, and no organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. TimothyJosephWood 15:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I had in in mind WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES#2 and, especially, Wikipedia:College and university article advice#Notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I figured, but OUTCOMES is an overview of previous arguments, and does not constitute an argument in and of itself. TimothyJosephWood 18:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It is, I think, a good argument for tagging this brand new article for improvement, and giving it time to improve.E.M.Gregory (talk)

The question remains, is there enough information that can be used for improving the article without making it sound like the information has been picked directly from a primary source (ie, the institute's website)? Currently, the information in the article seems trivial and promotional. Apart from basic information on course-work and its affiliation with JoSAA and Ministry of Textiles, I do not see what else could be included here. If only a few lines of information is worth keeping, then it might be worth redirecting the page to Bhadohi, specifically the section titled "Bhadohi carpets" (or a separate section titled "Education"), and have two to three lines on the institute there. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 19:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EM Gregory--Outcomes is not a good argument for a keep.Echo Jiten.Winged Blades ^Godric 05:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: there is the potential for notability but currently the whole thing needs work on tone, content and sources. DrStrauss talk 20:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, simplify + improve. – SJ + 10:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SJ it would be much beeter to mention some solid rationale than just !voting!Winged Blades ^Godric 05:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've changed my vote to "Redirect" since the institute itself is notable (being recognized by multiple national level bodies in India) but doesn't have enough sources to justify having its own article. The redirect can be supported with a short description of the institute in the article Bhadohi under the section "Bhadohi carpets" or a new section titled "Education". An example of the short description could be:

Indian Institute of Carpet Technology, a one-of-its-kind college in Asia, was established by Ministry of Textiles, Government of India in 2001. It has been recognized by All India Council for Technical Education and is affiliated with Joint Seat Allocation Authority.

The institute offers a Bachelor of Technology in Carpet and Textile Technology (CTT). The syllabus of the programmes covers both practical as well as theoretical understanding of the process of dyeing, textile fibres, carpet washing, and other industrial techniques.

The last statement can be supported by a ref to The Hindu article, as mentioned by E.M.Gregory. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 09:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Bhadohi as suggested above, including a brief mention. The article reads like a student prospectus and is not suitable for inclusion at this time. A redirect would serve the purpose quite nicely. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2017 (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.