Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Life Centre, Bhubaneswar

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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Human Life Centre, Bhubaneswar

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

Article on "Human Life Center". Nominating for deletion as it is essentially an informaiton listing based on unreliable sources. There are six references, four of which are published by the center itself, one by the Jesuit organization running it, and the last is a Google books entry with a phone book lisiting. Fails WP:GNG. Note that this is not a school. It is described on its own web site as an organization that is "promoting personal, interpersonal and community Growth." They never use the word "school". HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that we can't demand for articles on schools in India the kind of references that we have in the USA, where most people are literate and read newspapers. Their claims are not exorbitant and I believe we have to settle for this if we are to give minority schools in India access to Wikipedia. This is a simple, objective report on what is both an educational and development center. Such centers are a matter of interest to many who want to know the simple facts of what is going on that is good in the world. More basically, development centers and schools should have notability in their own right. Observe the number of courses offered and the picture of the three-story building that it occupies.Jzsj (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no special dispensation for notability requirements based on the location of the article subject. Nobody gets special rules. If they did the encyclopedia would fall apart. (Also, I'm not in the USA. This is a global encylcopedia.) HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I commend your intentions, on a human scale, but unfortunately your arguments do not fit the policy.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All articles must have significant coverage from sources that meet Wikipedia's reliability standard. That can indeed be a problem in some cases, but nonetheless is a requirement. In the article at hand, sources were woefully lacking; I also didn't find the required sources. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the nom is demonstrating WP:GEOBIAS here. This article is titled "Human Life Centre" yet in the opening sentence of this deletion proposal the nom refers to it as the "Human Life Center". The proper name of this organisation is "Human Life Centre" - why do some editors absolutely refuse to accept the use of British/Indian/Commonwealth English? AusLondonder (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder, actually the nom speaks and writes Canadian English and likes it. The nom got into the habit of writing "centre" as "centre" as the nom often writes for an American audience. The nom hopes this explanation is accepted in good humour. God save the Queen. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's not really a big issue. Thanks for your good-humoured reply. AusLondonder (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing currently hinting at the necessary notability, not convincing from any of the current contents. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional.Deb (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2016 (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.