Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Rural Management Pakistan

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Rural Management Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article is written like an advertisement and would need a very big rewrite to get away from that. Eeekster (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has been revised several times and I believe it meets wikipedia criteria of Notability and Verifiability . Please review it before nominating it for deletion. If there is any problem with the article that needs to be corrected, you are welcome to guide me. Samar Saeed Akhtar (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samar Saeed Akhtar (talk • contribs)

You can see by the nomination as to what's "wrong" and needs to be corrected within the next few days. You assume you have read

BWilkins ←track) 11:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Language of the article has been changed as required by the wikipedia user. Kindly review the article again and indicate what else needs to be done to make it acceptable. There is a similar page

• Comment: I'm seeing one potential
  Stuartyeates (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: Thanx .. I have added few more links to the article to support
  WP:RS. Samar Saeed Akhtar(talk) 09:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Majority of references are to its own website, others are only minor references that don't fully meet
  BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep no assistance has been refused. Kindly go through all the revisions thoroughly before making any comment. On a friendly note, do view other pages Harvard Business School which shares similar content and language but are available without any objection. links such as [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] are some of the third party links available on the web. ( Please note that [[8]] is a separate and independent organization.) Rest are the audited reports and web pages for reference. Still if there is any objection, it would be appreciated if the user specifically indicate a particular line or sub topic to be modified or reference be removed. Please rest assured that all the suggestions are taken very seriously by the primary editor. Repeatedly making vague comments can be disheartening for the new editors. Samar Saeed Akhtar (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many times to you intend to !vote? (

BWilkins ←track) 11:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

For the very first time. Samar Saeed Akhtar (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The content may need to be revised but the nominator has not suggested how the topic itself is not notable. Mar4d (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see that this article meets the criteria
  WP:RS Roomihayat (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep new citations support
  WP:V Symcos (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Keep fully meets
  WP:RS, this legnthy and informative article, offers ample coverage of the topic and is fully encyclopedic in every aspect I can see. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Close bad nomination. If it reads like an ad, then apply the appropriate mantainance tag for that. That isn't a valid reason to delete it. Deletion is only for articles that can not be fixed. Dream Focus 01:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep fully complies
  WP:VER. No need for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.47.232.40 (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2011 (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.