Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collegesolved

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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collegesolved

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

First tip-off was the anemic pageview tallies -- I know, an unofficial measure. But checking further, there may be at best one or two real sources dating from a few years ago, but nothing much since then. Only one source checking Education-related news, not much in business-related news, nothing in national newspapers. The few occasional sources are all from a few years ago, nothing much since 2011 or 2012. Accordingly, this subject fails to meet the general notability guideline in my view. Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches are turning up little more than trademark announcements. No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (quip) @ 15:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It did have a few hits in Tom's business search above, but they were press releases. LexisNexis search had listings and trademark filings. ProQuest had two hits in Investment Weekly News and the rest were repackaged press releases. Coverage in article is either press release or student paper, and the Bloomberg article is more about entrepreneurship than the company. No worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if non-English or offline sources are found. czar ♔ 05:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; any sources for notability are self-published press releases as well as listings on websites. Epicgenius (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above and lacks reliable third party sources. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2014 (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.