Talk:National Institute of Textile Engineering and Research
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 July 2017. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
Contested deletion
editThis article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (NITTRAD has been changed to NITER officially since last year) --Ejajulhoque (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
{{copypaste | url=http://www.niter.edu.bd/}} Velella Velella Talk 12:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you; it's been cleaned. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
CSD
editI am reopening the case for speedy delete in response to persistent vandalism and addition of promotional material made by 2 users who claim they are editing per a request by the institution. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Improperly applied COI tag
editAs Template:COI/doc states, "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article" (highlighting in original). In this edit Jd02022092 restored a COI tag and asserted in their edit summary that it was valid. Nothing on this page states what is non-neutral about the article or in what way.
Possibly Jd02022092 is confusing {{connected contributor}} with {{COI}}. The first does not prove the second. Just because one or more connected contributors have at some point edited the article, that does not mean the current text of the article is non-neutral. As the documentation says, "Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other {{POV}} tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame or to 'warn the reader' about the identities of the editors."
If there is biased text, specify what that text is and how it is POV (or better yet, fix it), otherwise "any editor is justified in removing the tag [COI] without warning". --Worldbruce (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- I will also tag @Winged Blades of Godric on this one, since he also restored COI tags before opening the SPI against Opi and Samsul. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Jd02022092 and Worldbruce:--The two templates are pretty identical in the spirits.But their usage-area, reason for usage and span of usage differs.Suppose a certain Mr. X is discovered to have a COI problem with an article Y which he had edited extensively.Without even discussion of any biases et al. he may have introduced, we may safely insert the {{connected contributor}} in the talk page.But, this does not necessitate an insertion of {{COI}} on the article.(For an example see current version of Raheja Developers and Talk:Raheja Developers).On the other hand, we can have another case where Mr. X has clearly introduced biased, promotional material in the article.Thus, we initially use the {tl|connected contributor}} in the talk page and {{COI}} in the article-page.But the {{COI}} stays in place only as long as there is content in it which is biased etc.After a thorough-clean-up, the {{COI}} tag is almost always removed.But remember the {{connected contributor}} in the talk page stays forever, irrespective of the condition of the article.(An example would be the current version of this article!)Winged Blades Godric 14:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Promotion
editReverted per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTBROCHURE.∯WBGconverse 06:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)