Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fullstack Academy

Fullstack Academy

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

Looks like a PR piece for the company. Neither the text nor the references give any indication of notability, and a web search turned up nothing worthwhile. Of the 6 references in the "awards and media" section, the Skilledup.com "award"[1] has no substance, the Forbes and VentureBeat mentions[2][3] are only in passing, and the other three[4][5][6] are all (advertorials?) about Fullstack's 2015 "hiring day".

Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant advert in the the typical sickly-smooth tones of a software promotion brochure. Artspamat its best. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in these three cite sources: [7][8][9]. "Advertorial" assessment is subjective and these sources are generally considered reliable. Although they may be primarily covering the "hiring day", the are also giving significant coverage the organization. ~Kvng (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points. First, WP:NRV says "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest ...". So, even if that one event was significant and the coverage was genuinely independent, that would not make the organisation notable, and in fact there is no other coverage of the organisation. Second, do you not think it's strange that an organisation which has had no coverage to date (and no coverage afterwards) suddenly has several media sources covering its "hiring day"? And, not one of those reports makes any suggestion that either the event or the company is any way unique, significant, or notable; they're all just there to have a look around at something they happened to came across. Amazing coincidence. Looks like advertorials to me. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic appears to meet first-order notability requirements. If you're right and there's a scam, this will become more apparent over time. I don't feel a need to try and read the tea leaves here. There is no urgency to delete. ~Kvng (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam, the newly added sources are not significant mentions or are simply press releases and the one that might, Buisness Insider is a very dubious source for reliability. Nothing else that indicates it meets GNG 73.138.114.150 (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now until a better article can be made as I see nothing currently better and convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]