Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Institute of Fashion Technology Ludhiana

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. —Darkwind (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute of Fashion Technology Ludhiana

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

Institute that has yet to be setup. Sole announcement is about the Indian Minister of Textiles announcing there would be an institute setup. Fails notability, fails as toosoon, and fails under schools since we don't even know how it will be configured/accredited at this point nor is there a firm date for opening. Caffeyw (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 18:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Another bad faith AFD from this editor. A National Institute does not pass GNG? Is it a joke? I can see lots of articles in Google. Too Soon is a bad argument, it is not a film. Work has already started. --Tito☸Dutta 18:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC) Need some more time study. Most probably it was proposed first in 2007 or 2008, but, I have not got any online source (other than dead link). I am trying to find offline sources, it might be difficult. --Tito☸Dutta 02:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you take to applying bad faith anytime you disagree despite Wiki policy to the contrary. Secondly the Institute has not been setup, it's only in the planning stages. TOOSOON can apply to anything, and an institute that has only been discussed is clearly toosoon. All that's been discussed so far is the Minister of Textiles stating there's a need for one in Ludhiana, Punjab. According to the article funding for the Institute has not even been decided. It's NOT the current National Institute of Fashion Technology in New Delhi, but a new campus being setup in a different city and state (which is even mentioned in the article). I suggest before calling bad faith on someone that proper research is done to ensure that like names don't cause confusion. Caffeyw (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure why not. I know very well NIFT and its branches.
WP:TOOSOON is an essay, not a policy and if you read this essay you'll see it mainly discusses films, actors etc and not a national government sponsored institute like this. I am pinging @MichaelQSchmidt:, who is the writer of the essay to see what he feels. --Tito☸Dutta 22:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Some things are obviously notable as soon as they are started or even announced, and a major institute of this sort is one of them. It's similar to a government decision to construct a new province: it would be notable at the first proposal. I do not , however, call this a bad faith nomination. The nom seems to be perfectly sincere in making his principal WP activity listing articles for deletion. He seems to have only a 50% success rate when judged by what the community does, but that could merely indicate a desire to learn by experience instead of first seeing what our practices actually are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 22:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we're missing the purpose of the AfD and attacking the user instead. Yes I had problems at first, heck I even took part of a month off to ensure I fully understood policy. I started posting again today, and so far this is the only article where I've been told it's an outright bad faith. All others have been taken as reasonable AfDs, with the clear majority supported outright. I'm sorry that I offended you by arguing against the closure of an AfD less then 24 hours after it opened, but it's clear now that if it involves India that you want it to stay. I've provided a very concise and well thought out reason for this AfD, and even if TOOSOON is just an essay it's used by most on AfD to show that something is premature in having it's own page. You've not argued one bit that this school exists, that there's firm plans for it, or that there's even an opening date, just it was announced as needed thus it should have an article. Your sole argument seems to be that you dislike the nominator and that since it involves India it should stay. Hopefully an admin can review this. To prevent further arguing I'm not posting on this AfD further. Talkpage is best. Caffeyw (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep per analysis by
WP:NRVE or a temporary redirection. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I am the one who created this article. Since it has been announced by Minister of Textiles, officially, and has been published on the official Mouthpiece of Government of India, there leaves very little doubt that the institute wont be setup. The whole process of setting up a new institute takes time and it may take 18-20 months before the Admission begins or the website of Institute goes live. I request you not to hurry it for deletion as the pace of Indian Bureaucracy is slow and very little progress is actually revealed to media. Quartzd (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if say the Gov. of California announces tomorrow that a University of CA campus should be opened in Arcadia we should go ahead and open a page called University of CA at Arcadia? Even though there's no funding, there's no promise it will actually be built, no promise that the legislature will approve of the plan? All we have at this time is a Minister's statement that a campus should be opened. I can understand a note on the UC main page, and in this case there is a note on the main National Institute of Technology page, but it's way too premature to have a National Institute of Technology Ludhiana page. Any number of things can happen between now and an actual campus opening, if one even ever does. Caffeyw (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have articles on some projects that don't exist yet, i.e. the Hyperloop (which may very well never be built). Mark Arsten (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And your
policy allows forward looking articles. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

That's true, however there's more reliable sourced information about it, and it's a concept. Here all we have is a state of need, nothing more, no source to indicate more information, no source to validate a school will be built. Nothing other then a Ministers desire. This fails even the SCHOOLS exception to GNG. Basically the keep votes are arguing that because a Minister stated they want a school we should just take it on blind faith that the school will be built. There's no money, no legislative approval, no building plans, no location picked, nothing. All it is currently is a stated desire of a Minister of Textiles. Caffeyw (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between campus of any University and autonomous Institutes like NIFT. However there are several pages for regional NIFTs like
BITS Pilani, Dubai Campus. Also, this is not a Minister's desire, but an announcement. Quartzd (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Big difference is those Institute's are open, they ARE schools. Also an announcement that an area should get an Institute is a desire, it doesn't become more then that until it's actually approved. Caffeyw (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's so premature that the NFIT has not even had a chance to weigh in on if they want, much less will build a campus in this city. I agree it doesn't have to wait till it opens, but we need to at least know it's more then an announced want before an article can be created. Caffeyw (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caffeyw, please try to understand that
hubris to declare it non-notable as either a topic or a concept. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I fully understand forward looking ideas can have articles if there's wide spread reliable discussion about them. As I said above the school does not have to open for an article to be created. However simply having a Minister of Textile state that he wishes a campus to open in a city is not wide spread discussion of creating a campus. All we have at this point is one persons desire to open a campus in this city. We don't have any discussion from the actual school that would open a new campus in this city, the city, the legislature, anyone else. There's nothing that can be said other then Minister of Textiles wants NFIT campus in city. Caffeyw (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to revisit the references which clearly state that the Institute would be started shortly and not 'I want an Institute' type. The article also talks about Land Allotment for the project. Here is the first paragraph from the same "Ludhiana will be shortly having a National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT). This was announced by the Union Minister of Textiles K.S Rao at the interaction with the representatives of Ludhiana Integrated Textile Park and Knitwear Club in the presence of Manish Tewari, Union Minister for Information and Broadcasting here today".Quartzd (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FYI, there appears to be a rather ham-handed and ineffective (so far) attempt at canvassing going on in relation to this subject here. While I doubt that it will have an effect on the outcome here at AfD (for which I have no opinion), you should probably all know about it in any event. Guy1890 (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going to an admin about a complaint is an attempt at vote getting? If you notice he didn't even support this vote. All you've done here is make an argument that you are suggesting people not be able to bring issues to an admin. I wrote a complaint, I never asked him to vote, to take a side, etc. Read before you make baseless complaints. Caffeyw (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not "inappropriate canvassing". And look at the editor he approached — it's Mark Arsten, a trusted admin. He was just trying to get help. --Tito☸Dutta 15:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really don't see any need for a really short page made of
rumors rather than a redirect to National Institute of Fashion Technology. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete/Redirect to National Institute of Fashion Technology. There's no coverage beyond a ministerial announcement, which by itself is not a guarantee that an institute will be set up, especially when made to a local trade group gathering. "Soon" is also a very variable term. Until such time that land allocation and the BoG are set up under the aegis of the statutory body (in this case NIFT) an institute is not a guarantee. We don't need to wait for admissions to open up, but we at least need to know that an institute is in the works and isn't just a promise. —SpacemanSpiff 19:51, 17 September 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.