Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edudigm

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 no consensus. Discounting the "per x", it's notable, "not notable", and "number of employees" arguments and the exploratory nomination, we have two editors who maintain that the cited sources confer notability, and one editor, Whpq, who gives a more detailed analysis to the contrary. There is insufficient discussion between these two perspectives to determine consensus, and a third relist would be inappropriate, so I close this now without prejudice against recreation at a later date. Skomorokh 18:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edudigm

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

More of advertisement. Might fail WP:N Srikanth (speak) 06:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They have more than 1000 students right now. In Calcutta, where I belong, they have tied up with a lot of schools and have given presentations there. --122.173.178.172 (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC) (moved post here as it was in between nomination statements -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. The two refs and two of the ELs within the article show more than sufficient notability. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spiff; organisation is notable. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability for test prep company established in 2008. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Let's review the references and links that are being used to establish notability. Reference 1 is to the careergraph area where material is submitted to the newspaper. The actual article text looks like press release rehash. Reference 2 consists almost entirely of quoting the founder. That doesn't look like any sort of significant editorial oversight. As for the external links, link 1 is to their website and is clearly not independent. Link 2 is a short article but is okay. Link 3 is again the Telegraphs careerpath section and has the same problem as reference 1 reading like a rehashed press release. Link 4 is an advertisement, and linke 5 and 6 don't even mention edudigm. Taken together, this doesn't represent coverage of sufficient depth to establish notability. My own search for additonal sourcing found nothing more so this appears to the totality of coverage for this company. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep http://www.edudigm.in/images/media/statesman.JPG on their site. There are more media links. (PS: I had started this page) --Paperjoiners (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Whpq Shyamsunder (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments of Whpq. Has only 3 employees, and claims of other media links are irrelevant if they are not included. Transmissionelement (talk) 12:46, 1 September 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.