Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThinkTank Learning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 14:16, 8 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.Revision as of 14:16, 8 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. Cirt (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ThinkTank Learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this company. A search returns just directory listings and self-published social media pages, and the references in the article mostly return general news pages where the purported articles are inaccessible. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete as per nom. First 50 results on Google return nothing but directory listings and contnt from the company. this newspaper article refernced in the current articel does seem to be independent, but doesn't have much depth of coverage. WP:CORP says "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." I don't think this newspaper article has "substantial depth". DES (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: As failing WP:N. A review of search results doesn't provide much coverage of this company, and what is there is very light. I saw nothing else in any other sources. Googlization (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2009 (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.