Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LearnVest

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. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LearnVest

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

Spammy article by a WP:SPA primarily drawn from primary sources. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. I normally close non-BLP articles without participation for 2 weeks as "no consensus" but I suspect Guy would rather it be relisted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created a LearnVest page because it is a notable company that has received extensive press. In the page's current state, perhaps the reliance on primary sources is too heavy. However, instead of deletion, I would like to request that it be updated to reflect more recent sources (such as the New York Times and Fortune). Asfp20 (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC) — Asfp20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

LearnVest suffices as a credible and notable personal finance resource for women. The website has already received extensive media attention and does not need additional advertising through Wikipedia; rather, the page educates the public on the information based and educational resource. I would agree that the page should be updated to reflect more recent sources rather than be deleted. ccf920 (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC) — ccf920 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. While gnews turns up mentions, none of them appear to amount to significant coverage, I only see press releases and passing mentions. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2010 (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.