Allen Career Institute – Endorse - All comments besides that of the requestor were endorsements. The closer gave clear reasoning both here and in the close itself in regard to their rationale behind the close. (non-admin closure) —Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The closer appears to have been biased against the "keep" side because of the unusual number of votes by new and low editcount users (probably as a result of the AfD being advertised at WP India). Even if their comments are discounted, there is no clear consensus for deletion, as we should also be assigning a low weight to comments by SwisterTwister, which is almost unintelligible and does not link to any policy anyway, and to the one by Shyamsunder which simply says "promotional", which is not a reason for deletion as long as it's possible to make improvements. The AfD was never relisted and I feel there was no sufficient discussion to establish a solid consensus.
In addition, it should be noted that all previous AfDs of Indian coaching institutes have resulted in a keep or no consensus closure. (12345678) AfDs are supposed to turn up consistent results, failing which it becomes a dangerous source of systemic bias. There are enough sources of systemic bias that are beyond the control of editors, let's not let AfD become one.
I am not asking for Sandstein's closure to be overturned, I am just asking for a relist to really establish a consensus.
Note: It is true that this article has been deleted and desperately recreated several times before the AfD deletion, with the most recent attempt being at Allen Career Institute (India). However, I do not anything to do with those recreations and have no conflict of interest.103.6.159.93 (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment: Most or all "keep" opinions were likely by canvassed, meatpuppeted or sockpuppeted accounts; three of these have now been checkuser-blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Satya satapathy. And of course this review is also made by an IP (without contacting me first). I don't anticipate a relist attracting a, shall we say, more representative audience of editors, and recommend closing this request. Sandstein 16:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see that 4 of the keep votes (satya satpathy, wizardlis54, Masterofroks, Fulfyxxx) are by the same person. But the remaining three keep votes are very much legitimate. 103.6.159.93 (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Keep votes just stating "it's notable" or "it is covered in media" is not a policy rationale when people fail to actually produce said coverage. Also, given that the page was deleted five times before the AFD discussion and a sixth time afterwards, deletion is not unusual for this page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky81682: The coverage was already produced. It was already in the article. You're an admin and you can see it. If you don't believe that coverage was significant, well then I've nothing to say. BTW, the article has been deleted some 11 times. See also the deletion logs for Allen career institute and ALLEN Career Institute. (But I don't think the number of times it has been deleted should be important for our consistent here.) 103.6.159.92 (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, incisive close by a very experienced closer, correctly discounting non-genuine Wikipedians turning up to !vote on promotion-tainted topic. In the discussion, User:DGG gave a very clear and correct explanation. While numbers are important, while it is important that a couple of senior Wikipedian's don't get wield control over the plebs, I have zero doubt that relisting for wider input would back the close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, as always when the most convincing argument advanced is a variant of
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which states the following: Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments and In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability. The arguments are hence compliant with the essay, not a violation of it. 103.6.159.92 (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Endorse. Typically I'd say that discussions contaminated with socking as badly as this one should be relisted cleanly to try and get a better consensus. In this case though, once the socking is removed, the only arguments for keep basically amount to
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No prejudice against renomination if a better sourced article can be drafted up, but I don't see that this discussion could have turned out differently. Lankiveil(speak to me) 09:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC).[reply
]
Endorse Unless some of these users who voted to keep the article can produce evidence of notability. See also
