Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Group of Institutions

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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United Group of Institutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Did a clean up of the advertising cruft. The page fails WP:NSCHOOLS. Apart from press releases, paid advertising and primary sources, there are no RS. Creator appears to be a SPA. Vikram Vincent 04:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Not sure about this one, Times of India is clearly not just paid advertising/a press release (1 2 3). FOARP (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources, "Online assessment, video interview helps students beat Covid" and "Freshers welcomed at induction programme of United College" are based on press releases by the institution. The third source titled, "UGI Allahabad president Jagdish Gulati honoured" states that "65 hard working faculty were honoured". So none of the sources add notability to the private educational institution. Vikram Vincent 11:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete From looking this over all that exists reference wise is a few press releases and otherwise extremely trivial coverage. There's nothing that would be up to muster for notability though. So, I'm going with delete for now. Unless someone can find WP:THREE good independent, in-depth references since I couldn't find any. If so, I'm more then happy to change my "vote" to keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Persuaded by Vikram Vincent's analysis. FOARP (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2021 (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.