Talk:National Institute of Technology, Rourkela

message: :Image:NITR logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:NITR logo.gif

message: Note:  Project Banner with Orissa workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under :Category:Orissa or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag  TALK2ME 07:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:INDIA]] Banner/Orissa Addition 

message: The list of departments should not include their email addresses. See WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE. --Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Substituted at 00:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: There was some support in the latest AfD, which has been closed with no consensus, for a merge, so I'm starting a formal discussion about that possibility. Since the AfD close, I've removed the worst of the original research and unsourced content from the article. I favour a merge because we only really have two reliable, independent sources and they are both quite old now, so there's not much to base a detailed article on. National Institute of Technology, Rourkela is not particularly detailed itself, so there's plenty of space for a section on this newsletter, which can be spun out into a separate article again if more independent sources emerge. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *I should have been clear: what I'm advocating is a selective merge, mostly of material that is supported by reliable, independent sources. The material I trimmed was mostly unsourced or original research, but what's left is still based mainly on primary sources, many of which don't actually support the material they accompany. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

text: *It's perfectly legitimate to remove unsourced content from articles, , as WP:PROVEIT explains. You mention that the list of notable interviews was sourced, but it was sourced to the interviews themselves. Those references demonstrate that the interviews happened, but not that they were the most notable. The latter requires a secondary source. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

text: *This isn't about whether the two independent sources demonstrate notability, but the fact that they don't say much about the subject, leaving the article to be based on primary sources. This was discussed as a problem, but the outcome of the AfD hasn't resolved it - the article is still based largely on primary sources. If we're now saying that articles can be based almost entirely on what a subject has written about itself, then we might as well just hand Wikipedia over to conflict-of-interest editors. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

text: *It's not that I'm displeased with the result of the AfD, but that the closing statement of the AfD suggested a separate discussion about the merits of a merge. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

text: ** That's a pretty biased closing statement for an AfD in which we had 4 Keeps, 1 Delete, and 2 Merge suggestions. Parzival221B (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *You've failed to count my nomination there, , but in any case, AfDs aren't numerical votes. The strength of arguments is also taken into account, so I presume that  placed little weight on one of the keep opinions, which basically amounted to an argument that effort had gone into the article so it shouldn't be deleted, when assessing the consensus. However, if you want to challenge the result, you'd have to do so at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't think that's a fair characterization of the keep votes (says a keep !voter).  It's that there were sources that met WP:N.  And to the point, there is nothing wrong with using reliable, primary sources for parts of the article. Hobit (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *It wasn't intended as such, . It was a description of one specific keep vote, to illustrate to Parzival221B that the closer doesn't simply count up the votes but instead has to assess the weight of the arguments. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *My bad, I saw "opinions" and missed "one of the" some how.  My critical reading skills need some work it appears. Hobit (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Monday Morning (newsletter)]] into [[National Institute of Technology, Rourkela]]