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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plebs Association of Law Teachers

[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Article PRODded with reason "Just founded organization. Amateurish website. No indication whatsoever of any notability. Only independent source in the article goes to the homepage of a similar organization, which does not mention this one. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG." DePRODded by IP without reason given, also removing the organization's URL from the article (apparently in reaction to the PROD). Frankly, this article and the associated website evoke parallels with predatory open access publishing... In any case, the PROD reason still stands, this fails all notability criteria. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the requestor stated, the website seems entirely new and lacks in any kind of information. Not to mention the lack of any coverage on notable and reliable sources. Qasaur (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indepemndent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and iRS. Besides, plebs get to appoint the tribunes, so they have enough representation here in the Roman Republic. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: In India there is no old institutions are of recent origins and it is to be kept because it is a developing nation and not developed as other developed countries have century old literature and give opportunity with suggested changes. Deleting will discourage the contributor and moreover it is not advertisement because it is non profitable institution.103.248.116.222 (talk) 05:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC) — 103.248.116.222 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Your !vote is not based in policy and will therefore likely be ignored by the closing admin. Please familiarize yourself with our inclusion criteria (WP:GNG and WP:ORG). Please aslo note that it is not necessary to be for profit in order to be promotional (although in the present case, when I look at the organization's website, I cannot shed the impression that this is just a new way to entice people to pay for publishing in yet another forgettable OA journal...) --Randykitty (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: In India it is necessary to know about such institution and Journal117.198.143.238 (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC) — 117.198.143.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NONPROFIT, no coverage, let alone significant, from google search. (May be a case of WP:TOOSOON?, even org's website mentioned in infobox/external links is undeveloped). Coolabahapple (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per all the above. Organization is not mentioned on any other sites I could find, and the website seems very recent. Pax Verbum 02:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: This phrase is unique and significant.117.251.115.19 (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC) — 117.251.115.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Perhaps you're at the wrong AfD, this is about an organization, not a phrase... --Randykitty (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Plebs Journal of Law has title issued by Government of India under the aegis of Plebs Association of Law Teachers and only criterion of longer time period is wrong it will be old as time never stops and every minute, every hour it is getting old. Website will be also mature one with pace of time.117.245.196.68 (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the website will be mature with time, come back then and if it satisfies WP:N or WP:V then, we'll see. Otherwise, it isn't notable as of yet. If it was a government run organisation, it could have been kept, but we can't have an article on every NGO, can we? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find sources to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. APerson (talk!) 17:44, 22 June 2015 (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.